# A Poll on Confession Subscription



## carlgobelman

I've been reading our very own R. Scott Clark's wonderful book on Reclaiming the Reformed Confession. In one of the chapters, Dr. Clark talks about the history of subscription to the confessions (whether they be 3FU or WCF). He breaks down the levels of subscription into two basic camps:


We subscribe to the Confession _because_ it is Biblical
We subscribe to the Confession _insofar as it's_ Biblical

The first group of people would be of the sort that the "Confession says it, that settles it" because they believe the Confession is Biblical. If there is any doubt regarding an article in the Confession, the proper response is to convene a committee to look into altering the confession (my guess this is analogous to the amendment process for the U.S. Constitution).

Within the second group there are three sub-categories (strict subscription, system subscription and substance subscription). Each one of these sub-categories allow (and even expect) ministry candidates to have exceptions to the confessions. Rather than alter the Confession, the exceptions are noted and the candidate is either accepted or rejected.

I was just wondering which camp you all fall into (I'm going to try to add a poll to this post).


----------



## Scott1

> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> Book of Church Order
> Preface
> 
> III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED
> 
> The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is
> subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,
> the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the
> Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter
> Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of
> Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as
> adopted by the Church



Let's be careful not to pit the Confessions against Scripture.

Understand the way the Confessions are received.

The Standards are not taken as infallible- that's why they can be amended. They are taken as faithful summaries of the doctrine contained in Scripture.

In a confessional church, it's not a matter of each person judging their own theology and agreeing in part, disagreeing with the church's confessed doctrine. Confessional churches are unified and accountable around what they confess.

Different denominations have somewhat different ways they "receive" their standards, but none take them as equal to Scripture.

In the PCA officers (deacons and elders) vow they comprehensively understand them and receive every statement or proposition of doctrine in them unless they are granted a peer-reviewed (minor) exception.

I don't think any biblical, reformed denomination would accept the premise of the #2 poll option.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I would not call exceptions taken to the Sabbath and 6/24 creation as "minor".


----------



## Osage Bluestem

I subscribe to the Westminster Confesion because I believe it is biblical.


----------



## BertMulder

I subscribe to the 3FU as my personal confession, because they are Biblical.


----------



## carlgobelman

Scott1 said:


> In the PCA officers (deacons and elders) vow they comprehensively understand them and receive every statement or proposition of doctrine in them unless they are granted a peer-reviewed (minor) exception.
> 
> I don't think any biblical, reformed denomination would accept the premise of the #2 poll option.



Given the fact that the PCA allows for 'peer-reviewed' exceptions automatically place them within group #2? Don't get me wrong, I don't say this as a criticism in anyway. Semantically speaking though if you allow exceptions without amending the Confession, then, logically speaking, you accept the confession insofar as it's Biblical.


----------



## Herald

I wanted to select the first question, but the fact that the confession I subscribe to is a man made document caused me to select the second question. btw I do believe the 1689 LBC is biblical.


----------



## Scott1

carlgobelman said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the PCA officers (deacons and elders) vow they comprehensively understand them and receive every statement or proposition of doctrine in them unless they are granted a peer-reviewed (minor) exception.
> 
> I don't think any biblical, reformed denomination would accept the premise of the #2 poll option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the fact that the PCA allows for 'peer-reviewed' exceptions automatically place them within group #2? Don't get me wrong, I don't say this as a criticism in anyway. Semantically speaking though if you allow exceptions without amending the Confession, then, logically speaking, you accept the confession insofar as it's Biblical.
Click to expand...


I don't think so. (And keep in mind, Carl, I'm speaking as one who does not take any "exceptions").

First of all, exceptions (scruples) historically in Presbyterianism are not automatically granted.

They have to be publicly stated, recorded, evaluated and voted on as part of the "overall package" of an officer's qualification- doctrine, gifts, calling, and exemplary life.

In addition, I think the PCA system is right to recognize "semantic" differences- those that are based on wording, not substance.

Everyone is not taking the same "exception." There may be quite a few in certain presbyteries, but I am not aware of any one "exception" being broadly granted across the denomination. Were that the case, a very deliberative review ought be undertaken to determine both the confessional substance on the proposition of doctrine and the process whereby exception was being granted.

But, merely having someone who agonizes over every single statement and proposition and can, in good faith receive 99.975% of them, but cannot in good conscience receive one, they should be considered. It, of course depends on what the exception is, what their biblical basis is for a difference, etc. The exception must not confound a fundamental principle or significantly undermine the system of doctrine confessed.

A situation like this does not at all reflect poll option #2.

"Loose" subscription, as I've heard that defined, is not one of your offered choices. It is an entirely different thing- and I don't think any biblical, reformed denomination has anything close to that.


----------



## Mushroom

I'm confused. Please set me straight. I know the scriptures to be fully true, not because I fully understand them and have found them to be true, but because I know this to be true:


> 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
> 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.



But knowing the fallible nature of my own understanding, I am given no reason to accredit any other writing the same trustworthiness, even if _insofar as I understand them_, I find them to be true. I have been reading the Bible for over 30 years. I have not always understood it as I do now, and in fact held to grave error in the past, _but it has always remained true regardless of my error._

Now, I have great respect for the Westminster Divines, and love the WCF itself, _insofar as I understand it to be biblical._ My unwillingness to state categorically that it is completely biblical is that I know my own fallibility, and am aware of the fallibility of the Divines as well, not because there is any part of it that I find unbiblical. 

Why then would it be incorrect to say that I "subscribe to the Confession insofar as it's Biblical"?


----------



## Skyler

I subscribe to the LBCF insofar as it is Biblical. For all I know, it may be entirely Biblical, but I don't know for sure and so I cannot conscientiously choose the first option. I'm not sure I see how one could, technically, unless they claimed to understand the confession and the Bible completely.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Brad said:


> I'm confused. Please set me straight. I know the scriptures to be fully true, not because I fully understand them and have found them to be true, but because I know this to be true:
> 
> 
> 
> 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
> 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But knowing the fallible nature of my own understanding, I am given no reason to accredit any other writing the same trustworthiness, even if _insofar as I understand them_, I find them to be true. I have been reading the Bible for over 30 years. I have not always understood it as I do now, and in fact held to grave error in the past, _but it has always remained true regardless of my error._
> 
> Now, I have great respect for the Westminster Divines, and love the WCF itself, _insofar as I understand it to be biblical._ My unwillingness to state categorically that it is completely biblical is that I know my own fallibility, and am aware of the fallibility of the Divines as well, not because there is any part of it that I find unbiblical.
> 
> Why then would it be incorrect to say that I "subscribe to the Confession insofar as it's Biblical"?
Click to expand...



I don't think it would be incorrect to say that. Nor do I think it would be incorrect to say that you subscribe to it because it is biblical. The method you choose depends on your personal confidence in your understanding of it.


----------



## Mushroom

> If there is any doubt regarding an article in the Confession, the proper response is to convene a committee to look into altering the confession


Wouldn't this automatically place the first group into the second?

-----Added 11/10/2009 at 06:41:08 EST-----



> The method you choose depends on your personal confidence in your understanding of it.


Hi David. But wouldn't the statement that you subscribe to it because its biblical infer then that you fully understand first all that _is_ biblical, and then that you fully understand what the Divines precisely meant when they wrote it? Pretty tall order for this puny mind. Maybe others are not so limited?


----------



## Jon Peters

I subscribe to the WCF insofar as it is Biblical. I have a couple of areas of disagreement. I believe it can be improved upon.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Anyone in the world could subscribe to the Westminster AS FAR THEY ARE BIBLICAL- In other words, if I believe that all the bible really teaches is the 'Golden rule' I could say, "I subscribe to the WCF as far as it teaches what the Bible teaches." 

It is a slippery slope, though by the grace of God many of us are in churches that use this type of language.


----------



## Mushroom

nleshelman said:


> Anyone in the world could subscribe to the Westminster AS FAR THEY ARE BIBLICAL- In other words, if I believe that all the bible really teaches is the 'Golden rule' I could say, "I subscribe to the WCF as far as it teaches what the Bible teaches."
> 
> It is a slippery slope, though by the grace of God many of us are in churches that use this type of language.


Nathan, is it any less a slippery slope to state with certitude that the Confession is biblical? If it is, is that the first version, or which amended version would fit that category?


----------



## MW

There is some confusion of categories in the OP. James Bannerman's Church of Christ and Hall's Practice of Confessional Subscription would be useful places to start thinking about this subject. The first point to be distinguished is the church's adopting and the officer's subscribing a confession. The church adopts because it is biblical, and it is ultra vires to alter that confession. The church is its confession (WCF 25:2, 5). If the church alters its confession it alters itself. Given this understanding, it is not a matter of "the Confession says it, that settles it;" rather, "the church has said that what the Confession says is biblical, and that settles it on an ecclesiastical level." Obviously the church has ministerial power to declare the sense in which it adopts the confession; but in whatever sense the church adopts its confession, it does so because it is deemed to be biblical, i.e., the sense which the Holy Spirit teaches in holy Scripture.

On officer subscription, it is the process by which individuals are given ministerial authority to teach and implement the church's confession. On this understanding, there can only be strict subscription. Strict subscription therefore belongs in the first option -- we subscribe the Confession because it is biblical. Here it must be noted that some churches relax the bonds of office, no doubt because they have explained the sense in which they receive the confession to such an extent that it does not identify with the sense of the confession any more. In such a situation it would be more honest to repudiate the confession and draw up a bond of union which more candidly reflects the church's confession of faith.


----------



## jandrusk

Of course I may be stating the obvious, but all of these statements fall apart if those in question:

1) Have not read the Bible cover to cover and understand context and meaning.

2) Do not understand the Bible from the context and perspective of the confession. 

I think it's vital that church officers are affluent in both 1 & 2 to become effective. My .02.


----------



## Pergamum

For Reformed Baptists a good portion claim to be of a strict subsciptionist mindset, but if you probe them, they are not certain about that bit on the Antichrist. 

Even Sam Waldron, who writes a book on the exposition of the 1689 admits as much:


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Confession-Faith-Samuel-Waldron/dp/085234340X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257904554&sr=1-2]Amazon.com: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (9780852343401): Samuel E. Waldron: Books[/ame]


----------



## bookslover

Herald said:


> I wanted to select the first question, but the fact that the confession I subscribe to is a man made document caused me to select the second question. btw I do believe the 1689 LBC is biblical.



Yes, indeedy. Secondary standards should be accepted in so far as they are biblical. This is because secondary standards are neither inspired, infallible, nor inerrant. They are man-made documents which can, in principle, be wrong - the Westminster divines, themselves, said as much (_Conf._ 1.10, 31.3). Any man-made statement, no matter how carefully written, can be improved. This is why they are _secondary_ standards.


----------



## jawyman

Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to "sincerely receive and adopt" these confessional documents "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."

I believe the WCF is most definitely biblical.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> They are man-made documents which can, in principle, be wrong - the Westminster divines, themselves, said as much (_Conf._ 1.10, 31.3).



True; but 31.3 also notes that these man-made documents can, in principle, be consonant to the word of God, and if they are consonant to the word of God, they "are to be received with reverence and submission."


----------



## Casey

jawyman said:


> Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to "sincerely receive and adopt" these confessional documents "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."


So do members who aren't officers technically "subscribe" to anything? (in the context of the OPC)


----------



## au5t1n

Why isn't there a poll option for those who believe in the Bible insofar as it is Confessional?


----------



## Mushroom

Or, as the old Scottish widow once said, "The Bible sheds a great amount of light on the Confession."


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> The church adopts because it is biblical, and it is ultra vires to alter that confession.



On this point, you disagree with several confessional churches. The PCA, OPC, (the now merged with the PCA, RPCES) and several other churches have adopted a confession, but reserve the authority to change the confession through some process. Those churches state, at least in the theoretical sense, that on principle, the confession does not define the church, but the scriptures do, and the church then defines the confession from the scriptures.



> 3. The Confession of Faith and Catechisms and the forms of subscription required of ministers, licentiates, ruling elders, and deacons, as these forms are found in the Form of Government, may be amended only in the following manner: The general assembly shall determine whether a suggested change is worthy of consideration. If so determined, it shall appoint a committee to consider any suggested change and to report to the next regular assembly with recommendations; that assembly may then propose the amendment to the presbyteries by a two-thirds majority of the members voting; approval by a presbytery shall be by a majority of the members voting, and following the decision the clerk of presbytery shall notify the clerk of the assembly, in writing, of the decision of the presbytery; if two-thirds of the presbyteries approve the amendment it shall be adopted finally only after approval of the next ensuing assembly by a two-thirds vote of the members voting.



The above is from the OPC book of church order. In a sense, it is the church declaring from principle, that the confession is correct in saying


> 10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.



The confession itself states the ultimate and only final authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. So the only ultra vires document to the church is the Scripture. To say otherwise is to say that the WCF (a decree of a council, opinions of [now] ancient writers, doctrines of men) is wrong in its wrong in Chapter I.10

-----Added 11/10/2009 at 10:37:22 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> True; but 31.3 also notes that these man-made documents can, in principle, be consonant to the word of God, and if they are consonant to the word of God, they "are to be received with reverence and submission."



True, but the WCF has been changed as the men of the time were captive to their own time and could not see past what was at the time the world in which they lived. I for one am glad that B. H. Obama is not the one to call church councils for the purpose of correcting the doctrines taught in our pulpits!


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Those churches state, at least in the theoretical sense, that on principle, the confession does not define the church, but the scriptures do, and the church then defines the confession from the scriptures.



If this were true it would mean they do not understand what a church is according to Christ's own definition in Matthew 16.



Brian Withnell said:


> The confession itself states the ultimate and only final authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.



That doesn't negate the secondary authority of the Confession. Why are you appealing to the Confession for this belief and not to the words of Scripture? That would be because you accept the secondary authority of the Confession.



Brian Withnell said:


> So the only ultra vires document to the church is the Scripture.



That's an odd use of the Latin phrase.

Well, given your appeal to the Confession in the preceding paragraph it is clear that at least that part of the confession is also beyond the power of men to alter. 



Brian Withnell said:


> I for one am glad that B. H. Obama is not the one to call church councils for the purpose of correcting the doctrines taught in our pulpits!



That doesn't appear to me to be a well thought out statement. By law your church is protected in its ownership of a pulpit simply because your civil government has adopted a Christian view of property instead of tribal concepts.


----------



## jogri17

50% v. 50% so far at the time I posted this... kinda scarry. Let me clarify. I confess the confession as adapted by my Church. That doesn't mean I agree with the 1st printing of it 100% rather its revised version because I believe the revisions put it on par with Scripture in the sense of innerancy *not infallibibility.* 

Here is the versions we confess in my Church: 
French
English


----------



## Osage Bluestem

I thought the confession is what you understand the bible to mean. That is what makes it our confession. Right?


----------



## carlgobelman

*Points of Clarification*

Let me clarify some things because it seems some people are misunderstanding my question.

Group #1 isn't meant to pit the Confession against Scripture. Group #1 is the position that one believes his Confession is Biblical (i.e., it is an accurate summary of Biblical doctrine). As such, I subscribe to it _en toto_ because it is Biblical. For example, if a confession has 30 articles, I accept all 30 articles without reservation and will teach as such. If there is a consensus that one (or more) of the articles is not in line with Scripture, rather than allow people to take exceptions, the move is to make the Confession come in line with SCripture so that is remains Biblical (e.g., the American version of the WCF ca. 1789).

Group #2 isn't meant to mean anyone can take any exception they please to the confession, but that if there is an exception is goes through a review process and the exception is either allowed or denied. Within this group there are various levels of subscription: Strict (which I believe is very close to group #1); System and Substance. System subscription allows exceptions as long as the system of doctrine is not challenged. According to Dr. Clark, Charles Hodge was an early advocate of this position, and if I'm not mistaken (I don't have the book in front of me) the system he had in mind was that expounded in the Canons of Dort. Substance subscription is the weakest of the three and has led to such things as the WCF simply stating the historic reformed doctrine (i.e., not necessarily to be adhered to today). This would be the position of the PCUSA and other mainline denominations.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> There is some confusion of categories in the OP. James Bannerman's Church of Christ and Hall's Practice of Confessional Subscription would be useful places to start thinking about this subject. The first point to be distinguished is the church's adopting and the officer's subscribing a confession. The church adopts because it is biblical, and it is ultra vires to alter that confession. The church is its confession (WCF 25:2, 5). If the church alters its confession it alters itself. Given this understanding, it is not a matter of "the Confession says it, that settles it;" rather, "the church has said that what the Confession says is biblical, and that settles it on an ecclesiastical level." Obviously the church has ministerial power to declare the sense in which it adopts the confession; but in whatever sense the church adopts its confession, it does so because it is deemed to be biblical, i.e., the sense which the Holy Spirit teaches in holy Scripture.
> 
> On officer subscription, it is the process by which individuals are given ministerial authority to teach and implement the church's confession. On this understanding, there can only be strict subscription. Strict subscription therefore belongs in the first option -- we subscribe the Confession because it is biblical. Here it must be noted that some churches relax the bonds of office, no doubt because they have explained the sense in which they receive the confession to such an extent that it does not identify with the sense of the confession any more. In such a situation it would be more honest to repudiate the confession and draw up a bond of union which more candidly reflects the church's confession of faith.



If I could unpack this a little, I think I understand what you are driving at but I want to see if you agree with a concern I have or not.

My increasing concern is that we all tend to treat the Scriptures from the standpoint that we don't need any external authority to guide us or bound us in that process. As I read the Word, I am increasingly struck by the fact that God gave His Word to His people. He didn't hand it over to each person individually but, corporately, He gave His Word to the Church. The thing that struck me about studying Gen-Joshua last year was how the Word actually constituted the people of God. God created His Church by His Word. I could probably tighten that up a little bit but I hope that makes sense so far.

Something the Pastor of our mother Church stated really stuck with me because he was talking about this idea when he recounted a conversation with another man in Presbytery. The minister was telling him that he believed the Scriptures taught X and that the rest of the Presbytery was wrong on this issue. Doug gently rebuked him and stated: "No, _we_ confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."

In other words, it is increasingly the case that ministers are content (or may even see in it the design of the Word itself!) that each person settle what the Word says for himself/herself and so the "I agree with the Confession because I believe that's what the Word says" means that the Church is nothing more than a _confederation_ of people who individually agree on what the Word teaches.

I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.

It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.


----------



## Mushroom

Maybe I missed the importance of the "We subscribe" as opposed to "I subscribe" in the OP. As the Church, we hold the confession to be biblical and to define what it is that we believe. As an individual, I place no great trust in my own ability to understand fully either the scriptures or the confession, but by the grace of God I know the scriptures to be infallibly true. The Holy Spirit has not granted me the same certitude of the infallibility of the confession.

So corporately perhaps we are a part of the #1 group, but individually I will still have to say I am a part of the #2 group, even if in the strict subscription subgroup, based only on the mistrust I have of my own faculties. Maybe the point being made is that individual views are immaterial to the question?

Edit: To further muddy the waters, now I notice that the OP said "We subscribe", while the poll said "I subscribe". What might that portend?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> I wanted to select the first question, but the fact that the confession I subscribe to is a man made document caused me to select the second question. btw I do believe the 1689 LBC is biblical.



I agree with Bill. But I hit number 1.


----------



## Mushroom

> Something the Pastor of our mother Church stated really stuck with me because he was talking about this idea when he recounted a conversation with another man in Presbytery. The minister was telling him that he believed the Scriptures taught X and that the rest of the Presbytery was wrong on this issue. Doug gently rebuked him and stated: "No, we confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."


Rich, the last time I attended Doug Kitteridge's Church, it was an independent reformed congregation. I know they have joined the PCA since then. Was this confessionalism he now holds a progressive realization, or was he confessional back when they were independent?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> In other words, it is increasingly the case that ministers are content (or may even see in it the design of the Word itself!) that each person settle what the Word says for himself/herself and so the "I agree with the Confession because I believe that's what the Word says" means that the Church is nothing more than a _confederation_ of people who individually agree on what the Word teaches.
> 
> I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. *The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. *This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.
> 
> It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.



I just listened to Fesko discuss his latest book on Justification by Faith alone on a Covenant Radio Broadcast. During the Broadcast he made me full aware that the Church ever since the beginning of time has struggled against legalism and disbelief. That was one of the major reasons the Book of Romans and Galatians was written by Paul. From the beginning of Genesis we are told of the Messiah and His work. But we are now born dead and can't seem to understand something that has proceeded to us from outside of us. Therefore we start off with wrong thinking and need to be brought back to what is right from something that isn't in us naturally. It is an age old problem that only God fixes.

I love the part that I boldened above Rich. It reminds me of the often quoted saying that we are on a Journey and we just need to discover our path. 

Truth comes from outside of us. Not from within. Lining up with it is very hard since we are not naturally inclined toward it. I love Romans 7.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

carlgobelman said:


> Let me clarify some things because it seems some people are misunderstanding my question.
> 
> Group #1 isn't meant to pit the Confession against Scripture. Group #1 is the position that one believes his Confession is Biblical (i.e., it is an accurate summary of Biblical doctrine). As such, I subscribe to it _en toto_ because it is Biblical. For example, if a confession has 30 articles, I accept all 30 articles without reservation and will teach as such. If there is a consensus that one (or more) of the articles is not in line with Scripture, rather than allow people to take exceptions, the move is to make the Confession come in line with SCripture so that is remains Biblical (e.g., the American version of the WCF ca. 1789).
> 
> Group #2 isn't meant to mean anyone can take any exception they please to the confession, but that if there is an exception is goes through a review process and the exception is either allowed or denied. Within this group there are various levels of subscription: Strict (which I believe is very close to group #1); System and Substance. System subscription allows exceptions as long as the system of doctrine is not challenged. According to Dr. Clark, Charles Hodge was an early advocate of this position, and if I'm not mistaken (I don't have the book in front of me) the system he had in mind was that expounded in the Canons of Dort. Substance subscription is the weakest of the three and has led to such things as the WCF simply stating the historic reformed doctrine (i.e., not necessarily to be adhered to today). This would be the position of the PCUSA and other mainline denominations.



Ok that makes sense. I believe I am firmly stuck in group one until someone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that any part of the Westminster Confession is unbiblical. I think it is the best summary of what scripture says that man has written down.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

It's a trap...it's a trap.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Choice #1 for me.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is some confusion of categories in the OP. James Bannerman's Church of Christ and Hall's Practice of Confessional Subscription would be useful places to start thinking about this subject. The first point to be distinguished is the church's adopting and the officer's subscribing a confession. The church adopts because it is biblical, and it is ultra vires to alter that confession. The church is its confession (WCF 25:2, 5). If the church alters its confession it alters itself. Given this understanding, it is not a matter of "the Confession says it, that settles it;" rather, "the church has said that what the Confession says is biblical, and that settles it on an ecclesiastical level." Obviously the church has ministerial power to declare the sense in which it adopts the confession; but in whatever sense the church adopts its confession, it does so because it is deemed to be biblical, i.e., the sense which the Holy Spirit teaches in holy Scripture.
> 
> On officer subscription, it is the process by which individuals are given ministerial authority to teach and implement the church's confession. On this understanding, there can only be strict subscription. Strict subscription therefore belongs in the first option -- we subscribe the Confession because it is biblical. Here it must be noted that some churches relax the bonds of office, no doubt because they have explained the sense in which they receive the confession to such an extent that it does not identify with the sense of the confession any more. In such a situation it would be more honest to repudiate the confession and draw up a bond of union which more candidly reflects the church's confession of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I could unpack this a little, I think I understand what you are driving at but I want to see if you agree with a concern I have or not.
> 
> My increasing concern is that we all tend to treat the Scriptures from the standpoint that we don't need any external authority to guide us or bound us in that process. As I read the Word, I am increasingly struck by the fact that God gave His Word to His people. He didn't hand it over to each person individually but, corporately, He gave His Word to the Church. The thing that struck me about studying Gen-Joshua last year was how the Word actually constituted the people of God. God created His Church by His Word. I could probably tighten that up a little bit but I hope that makes sense so far.
> 
> Something the Pastor of our mother Church stated really stuck with me because he was talking about this idea when he recounted a conversation with another man in Presbytery. The minister was telling him that he believed the Scriptures taught X and that the rest of the Presbytery was wrong on this issue. Doug gently rebuked him and stated: "No, _we_ confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."
> 
> In other words, it is increasingly the case that ministers are content (or may even see in it the design of the Word itself!) that each person settle what the Word says for himself/herself and so the "I agree with the Confession because I believe that's what the Word says" means that the Church is nothing more than a _confederation_ of people who individually agree on what the Word teaches.
> 
> I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.
> 
> It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.
Click to expand...


I very much agree that the Scripture was given to God's People and that we confess the Scriptures together. This is all the more reason for the Church always to examine its confessions (respectfully examine, but examine nonetheless).



Baptismal regeneration seemed to be a majority position of the early church fathers, and the same with Premillenialism. 

Also, the independants and credobaptists have been around in large numbers for awhile and now probably surpass the numbers of Presbyterians worldwide. 


We as God's global people are laboring together to know the Scriptures, and there is a wide diversity of views still yet, and some of the oldest and longest held views are not necessarily the correct ones.

Finally, the most current and most globally representative major documents that resemble "Creeds" or "Confessions" were done by either baptists or an international community representing folks from all over the world (and not just western Europe), the Lausanne Covenant. The Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles was also a document endorsed by a large number of God's people. While only a few of these historical documents are listed on the PB and discussed when the topic of confessionalism comes up, this does not mean that everyone else is out to "do their own thing." Many adhere to newer documents which were formed out of knowledge of the old. And most of the members even on the PB seem to hold to a revised version of the Original WCF (the OPC and PCA hold to revised versions of the WCF, right, and not the original?).

Probably the most representative of the newer confessions would by the Lausanne Covenant, which was composed by an international representation of the Global Church and not merely Western Europeans. It can be found here: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Covenant]Lausanne Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].



Should we say that the Church has spoken through the Lausanne Covenant?




If a church is its confession, then the church HAS, indeed, altered itself multiple times both before and after the original WCF, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.



Yes, God gave His Word to the Church entire. A man might disagree with the original Westminster Confession, for instance, on issues that tend towards theocracy and still be MORE representative of the "Church's Beliefs" than the one who adheres strictly to the original Confession. That is why we have revisions, and that is why new documents are written.


I would say that no one on this poll could answer #1 unless they held to the Original Westminster in its un-altered forms.


----------



## jawyman

CaseyBessette said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to "sincerely receive and adopt" these confessional documents "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."
> 
> 
> 
> So do members who aren't officers technically "subscribe" to anything? (in the context of the OPC)
Click to expand...


Casey, technically members should (and most do) subscribe to the Westminster Confession. When someone becomes a member they are now under the authority of the Session and the Session is responsible to make sure covenant children as well as adult members are catechize properly. This would include studying, understanding, and subscribing to the Confession of the Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brad said:


> Something the Pastor of our mother Church stated really stuck with me because he was talking about this idea when he recounted a conversation with another man in Presbytery. The minister was telling him that he believed the Scriptures taught X and that the rest of the Presbytery was wrong on this issue. Doug gently rebuked him and stated: "No, we confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, the last time I attended Doug Kitteridge's Church, it was an independent reformed congregation. I know they have joined the PCA since then. Was this confessionalism he now holds a progressive realization, or was he confessional back when they were independent?
Click to expand...


Doug has definitely grown in his Confessional subscription. To his credit and humility he realized that a Church that has no real Confessional moorings is rife with problems. It cost him a great deal personally when the Church moved into the PCA about 12 years ago.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> "No, _we_ confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."



Rich, this is a major solution to a major problem today. Brotherly responsibility and missional integrity mean we cannot simply agree to disagree but must patiently work with each other to come to the unity of the faith so that we can strive together for the faith of the gospel.


----------



## Casey

jawyman said:


> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to "sincerely receive and adopt" these confessional documents "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."
> 
> 
> 
> So do members who aren't officers technically "subscribe" to anything? (in the context of the OPC)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Casey, technically members should (and most do) subscribe to the Westminster Confession. When someone becomes a member they are now under the authority of the Session and the Session is responsible to make sure covenant children as well as adult members are catechize properly. This would include studying, understanding, and subscribing to the Confession of the Church.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my question was not clear -- and I didn't intend to direct it solely at you.  Is "subscription" merely a personal decision (non-officers)? Or does "subscription" mean something more, namely, a public vow (officers)? Or can it mean both?


----------



## Scott1

> *CaseyBessette*
> Sorry, my question was not clear -- and I didn't intend to direct it solely at you. Is "subscription" merely a personal decision (non-officers)? Or does "subscription" mean something more, namely, a public vow (officers)? Or can it mean both?



My understanding is basically that:

1) officers vow they understand and agree with it completely and therefore "receive" it in good faith as faithful summary of what scripture teaches
2) members vow they will submit to the government and discipline of the church (doctrines somewhat reflected in the confession) and study the church's doctrine peaceably

This seems to me reasonable and protecting of the vital interests.

New Christians who become members cannot be expected to immediately understand, far less vow they agree with every aspect of the profound doctrine contained in their church's confession.

I just can't see setting that a high a bar in Scripture- to require all that before a church recognizes something God has done- redeemed a sinner, adopted him into His Body, and by His providence, placed him in a local body of believers and appointed leaders to oversee and govern that.

It took me a long time to "unwind" the tenets of dispensationalism that were assumed by past Bible teachers and preachers. I'm not sure I could have articulated all the questions- let alone the answers starting as a member new to the reformed faith.

But more than the practical effect, it does not Scripture does not require all that extensive examination of members- for officers, deacons, elders, ministers- yes. The men God calls to those offices are qualified by calling, gifts, doctrinal knowledge and joyous receipt of it, and an exemplary life. These are specifically set out in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and by analogy in Acts 6 and other places and established by other principles- but this is not the common requirement for members.


----------



## Kevin

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I would not call exceptions taken to the Sabbath and 6/24 creation as "minor".



Since the WCF does not teach 6/24 creation, then to disagree would not be an exception...


----------



## Scott1

Kevin said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not call exceptions taken to the Sabbath and 6/24 creation as "minor".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the WCF does not teach 6/24 creation, then to disagree would not be an exception...
Click to expand...


Yes, I would have to say it does.



> Chapter IV
> Of Creation
> 
> I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.[3]



Someone not holding to it likely would need to request an exception. Incidentally, there are some presbyteries in our denomination that automatically will not grant that as an exception.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Actually it does (which I say having looked at the sources, harrumph, harrumph). I raise your contention with another.
*Moderator  If someone wants to discuss original intent of the Westminster Assembly on this, start another thread or search for older ones.
*


Kevin said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not call exceptions taken to the Sabbath and 6/24 creation as "minor".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the WCF does not teach 6/24 creation, then to disagree would not be an exception...
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin

Hey I agree. I was just trying to point out that for a great many people "what I believe" to be an interpretation, they take to be a "plain reading".

I thought about using psalmody as an example but I thought that it would get the thread off track too soon...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

... and moved to a moderated forum. 


Kevin said:


> I thought about using psalmody as an example but I thought that it would get the thread off track too soon...


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches state, at least in the theoretical sense, that on principle, the confession does not define the church, but the scriptures do, and the church then defines the confession from the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true it would mean they do not understand what a church is according to Christ's own definition in Matthew 16.
Click to expand...

They might disagree with how you define it. While I am sure the churches are very reluctant to redefine the confession, they have done so in the past. They may do so in the future if they find things they believe are contradictory to the scripture within the confession.


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confession itself states the ultimate and only final authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't negate the secondary authority of the Confession. Why are you appealing to the Confession for this belief and not to the words of Scripture? That would be because you accept the secondary authority of the Confession.
Click to expand...

While I believe that the church has the right to amend the confession in principle, the secondary documents of the constitution are amendable. That I would appeal to an authority greater than my own meager abilities to argue would be that while I tend to believe them not pure, I find them more nearly pure than the bulk of what I see anywhere else. Are they infallible? No. Do I believe they are correct in nearly all of they say? Yes.


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the only ultra vires document to the church is the Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an odd use of the Latin phrase.
Click to expand...


It's been 36 years since I took Latin, what do you expect? 

The only document beyond the authority/power of the church is the scripture. It alone defines the church.




> Well, given your appeal to the Confession in the preceding paragraph it is clear that at least that part of the confession is also beyond the power of men to alter.


No, just that I believe it to be true. 


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one am glad that B. H. Obama is not the one to call church councils for the purpose of correcting the doctrines taught in our pulpits!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't appear to me to be a well thought out statement. By law your church is protected in its ownership of a pulpit simply because your civil government has adopted a Christian view of property instead of tribal concepts.
Click to expand...


The confession states otherwise, at least in the original 1647 version.


> 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


----------



## NRB

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.

Oh, HELLO all....new here. Great board!!!


----------



## Pergamum

NRB said:


> I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.



Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Semper Fidelis said:


> My increasing concern is that we all tend to treat the Scriptures from the standpoint that we don't need any external authority to guide us or bound us in that process. As I read the Word, I am increasingly struck by the fact that God gave His Word to His people. He didn't hand it over to each person individually but, corporately, He gave His Word to the Church. The thing that struck me about studying Gen-Joshua last year was how the Word actually constituted the people of God. God created His Church by His Word. I could probably tighten that up a little bit but I hope that makes sense so far.


...


> I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.
> 
> It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.



This is of course what the Roman church stated as its main objection to the reformation and having the scriptures translated to the native tongue. In a sense, they were right. Every man with the ability to read does in fact read the scriptures for themselves, and from that either agrees or disagrees with the church in which he finds himself.

I would disagree that the church is now just a confederation. We still give authority to the church, but we reserve the right to stand before councils and declare "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."

We have "let the genie out of the bottle" and it is impossible to put it back. I'm not sure it ought to be put back.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> They might disagree with how you define it. While I am sure the churches are very reluctant to redefine the confession, they have done so in the past. They may do so in the future if they find things they believe are contradictory to the scripture within the confession.



Jesus said the church is built on the rock of its confession. If the confession changes it ipso facto becomes a different church. No doubt the church should have the integrity to repudiate past errors, but in doing so it repudiates itself for teaching those past errors, for binding its teachers and overseers to assert, maintain, and defend them, and for imposing them as articles of faith to be believed. Yet rarely do revisionists approach the work of revision with a sense of the enormity of their past transgressions. The failure to understand these things indicates that the confession of faith is not functioning as a confession of faith but as a mere text of historical theology.



Brian Withnell said:


> The only document beyond the authority/power of the church is the scripture. It alone defines the church.



"Scripture" can be claimed by heretics. It is the truth of Scripture, what it teaches, which defines the church. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. No man can lay any other foundation than Jesus Christ.



Brian Withnell said:


> The confession states otherwise, at least in the original 1647 version.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


Yes, that is what the Long Parliament was doing when it called the Assembly of divines which produced the Westminster Confession of Faith.


----------



## NRB

Pergamum said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.
Click to expand...


As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.


----------



## Kevin

NRB said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
> I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the board.


----------



## Michael

NRB said:


> Oh, HELLO all....new here. Great board!!!


Welcome!


----------



## Pergamum

NRB said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
> I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.
Click to expand...


Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB. 

WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.


The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.

Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!


----------



## NRB

Pergamum said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
> I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.
> 
> WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.
> 
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.
> 
> Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!
Click to expand...


Thankyou. 

I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
Interesting thread.


----------



## Pergamum

NRB said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
> I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.
> 
> WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.
> 
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.
> 
> Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thankyou.
> 
> I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
> Interesting thread.
Click to expand...


Related questions might be:

Do we consider the Confessions to be functionally infallible?

and,

Who is in charge and submits to whom, the Church or the Confession (which, after all, was written by the Church)....


----------



## NRB

NRB said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know you are correct, but I do not know for sure. I'm a recent convert to the denomination (coming from SBC).
> I just know whatever version that is in my catechism book for new members is the only version that I've read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.
> 
> WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.
> 
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.
> 
> Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thankyou.
> 
> I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
> Interesting thread.
Click to expand...


Here's an update for you my brother. The quote is from the PCA website concerning the WCF.....



> The First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, meeting at the Briarwood Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, Alabama, December 4-7, 1973, adopted the Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism as the doctrinal standards of the Church.
> 
> The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred (XXIV,4), and the reference to the Pope as the antichrist (XXV,6).
> 
> Other than these changes, and the American amendments of Chapter XXIII on the civil magistrate (adopted in 1789), this is the Confession and Catechisms as agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster which met from 1643-1647. The Caruthers edition of the Confession and Catechisms, which is based upon the original manuscript written by Cornelius Burgess is the Edition presented to and adopted by the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America



-----Added 11/11/2009 at 10:57:43 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.
> 
> WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.
> 
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.
> 
> Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou.
> 
> I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
> Interesting thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Related questions might be:
> 
> Do we consider the Confessions to be functionally infallible?
> 
> and,
> 
> Who is in charge and submits to whom, the Church or the Confession (which, after all, was written by the Church)....
Click to expand...


Excellent question.

I don't like to label anything written by man as "infallible" so I must think a bit on the functionally part. 

The Church is in charge with Christ as it's head as far as I am concerned. If the Confession was in charge then the church AND all laypersons must submit to it....and as far as I know in the PCA, no lay-person at all needs to profess adherance to the WCF in any of it's forms.


----------



## Pergamum

NRB said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, sorry for jumping right on you with your 3 posts on the PB.
> 
> WELCOME BROTHER! Great to have you here.
> 
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that any altered form of the Westminster besides the original would make #2 in the poll above to be the logical choice. And the PCA and OPC I think hold to revised versions.
> 
> Again, welcome, God bless and enjoy the banter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou.
> 
> I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
> Interesting thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an update for you my brother. The quote is from the PCA website concerning the WCF.....
> 
> 
> 
> -----Added 11/11/2009 at 10:57:43 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou.
> 
> I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
> Interesting thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Related questions might be:
> 
> Do we consider the Confessions to be functionally infallible?
> 
> and,
> 
> Who is in charge and submits to whom, the Church or the Confession (which, after all, was written by the Church)....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> I don't like to label anything written by man as "infallible" so I must think a bit on the functionally part.
> 
> The Church is in charge with Christ as it's head as far as I am concerned. If the Confession was in charge then the church AND all laypersons must submit to it....and as far as I know in the PCA, no lay-person at all needs to profess adherance to the WCF in any of it's forms.
Click to expand...


So your answer seems to be #2 in the poll like me.


----------



## NRB

Pergamum said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou.
> 
> I am still trying to work out in my mind the two poll choices now that we've had a give and take about this actually.
> Interesting thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an update for you my brother. The quote is from the PCA website concerning the WCF.....
> 
> 
> 
> -----Added 11/11/2009 at 10:57:43 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Related questions might be:
> 
> Do we consider the Confessions to be functionally infallible?
> 
> and,
> 
> Who is in charge and submits to whom, the Church or the Confession (which, after all, was written by the Church)....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> I don't like to label anything written by man as "infallible" so I must think a bit on the functionally part.
> 
> The Church is in charge with Christ as it's head as far as I am concerned. If the Confession was in charge then the church AND all laypersons must submit to it....and as far as I know in the PCA, no lay-person at all needs to profess adherance to the WCF in any of it's forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your answer seems to be #2 in the poll like me.
Click to expand...


It seems to be turning that way.


----------



## au5t1n

Pergamum said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.
Click to expand...


As far as I know, all the changes are subtractions, not additions. So it is entirely possible for a PCA minister to believe in the original in its entirety and still subscribe to the updated version. As far as I know, none of the removed views are forbidden in the PCA - They are just no longer mandatory for all ordained officers.


----------



## NRB

austinww said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I know, all the changes are subtractions, not additions. So it is entirely possible for a PCA minister to believe in the original in its entirety and still subscribe to the updated version. As far as I know, none of the removed views are forbidden in the PCA - They are just no longer mandatory for all ordained officers.
Click to expand...


Yes that is correct from my limited knowledge of my new denomination:



> The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred (XXIV,4), and the reference to the Pope as the antichrist (XXV,6).


 ---from pcanet.org

Now the differences from the original WCF and the version adopted (if any) by the 1789 American Presbyterian Assembly I still have to research.


----------



## au5t1n

NRB said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, all the changes are subtractions, not additions. So it is entirely possible for a PCA minister to believe in the original in its entirety and still subscribe to the updated version. As far as I know, none of the removed views are forbidden in the PCA - They are just no longer mandatory for all ordained officers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is correct from my limited knowledge of my new denomination:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred (XXIV,4), and the reference to the Pope as the antichrist (XXV,6).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---from pcanet.org
> 
> Now the differences from the original WCF and the version adopted (if any) by the 1789 American Presbyterian Assembly I still have to research.
Click to expand...


The changes between the original and the 1789 are actually the ones to which I was referring. Oh, and...


----------



## NRB

austinww said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, all the changes are subtractions, not additions. So it is entirely possible for a PCA minister to believe in the original in its entirety and still subscribe to the updated version.  As far as I know, none of the removed views are forbidden in the PCA - They are just no longer mandatory for all ordained officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is correct from my limited knowledge of my new denomination:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred (XXIV,4), and the reference to the Pope as the antichrist (XXV,6).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---from pcanet.org
> 
> Now the differences from the original WCF and the version adopted (if any) by the 1789 American Presbyterian Assembly I still have to research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The changes between the original and the 1789 are actually the ones to which I was referring. Oh, and...
Click to expand...


Then the deletions I've read are not biblical to begin with In my humble opinion (especially about the Roman Pontiff.)

Like I stated, I am still learning A LOT from you all and other sites(monergism.com, etc.)
All I know is that reformed presbyterian theology, being wrapped around the WCF is the bomb! That is the best way I can put it ever since the Doctrines of Grace initially opened my eyes, mind and heart to reformed theology. 


Thankyou for the Welcome! 
I've lurked here for a while ever since AMR suggested this wonderful forum.
It's a wonderful resource and community.


----------



## au5t1n

NRB said:


> Then the deletions I've read are not biblical to begin with In my humble opinion (especially about the Roman Pontiff.)
> 
> Like I stated, I am still learning A LOT from you all and other sites(monergism.com, etc.)
> All I know is that reformed presbyterian theology, being wrapped around the WCF is the bomb!
> 
> 
> Thankyou for the Welcome!
> I've lurked here for a while ever since AMR suggested this wonderful forum.
> It's a wonderful resource and community.



My point is that those views have not necessarily been rejected as unbiblical by the whole PCA GA; they are simply not binding on all ministers - They are still permissible, to my limited knowledge. So if someone wants to hold to the original confession's view of the civil magistrate, he can still subscribe to the PCA's revised form as well (I believe).

Happy learning - I am learning too.


----------



## NRB

austinww said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the deletions I've read are not biblical to begin with In my humble opinion (especially about the Roman Pontiff.)
> 
> Like I stated, I am still learning A LOT from you all and other sites(monergism.com, etc.)
> All I know is that reformed presbyterian theology, being wrapped around the WCF is the bomb!
> 
> 
> Thankyou for the Welcome!
> I've lurked here for a while ever since AMR suggested this wonderful forum.
> It's a wonderful resource and community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that those views have not necessarily been rejected as unbiblical by the whole PCA GA; they are simply not binding on all ministers - They are still permissible, to my limited knowledge. So if someone wants to hold to the original confession's view of the civil magistrate, he can still subscribe to the PCA's revised form as well (I believe).
> 
> Happy learning - I am learning too.
Click to expand...


I see your point. The PCA GA revised what it thought was not necessary me thinks. I'm not sure what version a PCA Elder must profess as truth; I assume the 1789 version adopted by the 1st GA, but if an Elder says that he adheres to the unrevised original version of the WCF I don't see him being rejected by one of it's presbyterys for ordination.
I hope I'm following your point.


----------



## Scott1

Pergamum said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subscribe to the Westminster Standards because it is biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but I see that you are PCA - so your denomination does not even subscribe to the original Westminster, but one that was revised in 1788 I think, because deficiencies were found in it.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't make "too much" of the revisions adopted in the American colonies.

The Standards that NRB and others of us in the PCA confess are, as he rightly points out, are the ones adopted in the 1700's in these United States.

The (very few) changes had primarily to do with monarchy/civil government and reflected the establishment as it existed (and still exists) in the New World. There are threads discussing this.

The fact that the Standards were amended, slightly, reflects the nature of the standards as we hold them:



> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> Book of Church Order
> Preface
> 
> III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED
> 
> The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church



As has been brought out here in the thread, it is not at all a case of each person independently picking and choosing their doctrine- not in a confessional church with a generationaly time-tested confession. Remember, in reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

It is not at all the case of the common approach of "broad evangelicalism"- a loose association of independent adults, each person independently evaluating and coming up with their own doctrines, subject to an overall belief in Jesus as Savior and Lord. While that is definitely central, it has profound implications, even to the person and work of Christ that are summarized in our Standards.

The focus of the member, in the Presbyterian system at least, is to peaceably learn the church's confessed doctrine. It is profound, embodies mystery and great truths of God.

Also, remember, God does deposit some collective wisdom in the church "politick"- He will speak through His Church, authoritatively and interpretively- but always subject to His Word.

The notion of that may be someone lost in a very independent minded culture, but it is not lost on our God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brian Withnell said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> My increasing concern is that we all tend to treat the Scriptures from the standpoint that we don't need any external authority to guide us or bound us in that process. As I read the Word, I am increasingly struck by the fact that God gave His Word to His people. He didn't hand it over to each person individually but, corporately, He gave His Word to the Church. The thing that struck me about studying Gen-Joshua last year was how the Word actually constituted the people of God. God created His Church by His Word. I could probably tighten that up a little bit but I hope that makes sense so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.
> 
> It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course what the Roman church stated as its main objection to the reformation and having the scriptures translated to the native tongue. In a sense, they were right. Every man with the ability to read does in fact read the scriptures for themselves, and from that either agrees or disagrees with the church in which he finds himself.
> 
> I would disagree that the church is now just a confederation. We still give authority to the church, but we reserve the right to stand before councils and declare "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."
> 
> We have "let the genie out of the bottle" and it is impossible to put it back. I'm not sure it ought to be put back.
Click to expand...


I believe you are misapprehending the substance of my concern. I'm not arguing for a _Regula Fide_ where authority is granted to Church dogma as being on par with Scripture but for an _Analogia Scriptura_ where Pastors and Teachers are seen in Scripture as having a task to lead the Church to the unity of the faith. I'm not arguing for a lack of personal study or scrutiny of the Scriptures but that individuals within the Church need to understand that the Word is given corporately for the edification of the whole Body and not merely individually. 

It is not the case that Scripture commands a man to come to a knowledge of the things of God independently of the Church and then simply find a collection of like-minded individuals who agree with his independent conclusions about the Scriptures. Rather, the Church is constituted by the Word of God to disciple men and women and teach them everything that Christ has commanded and humble submission is often required by men to submit to the teaching authority of the Church - not because the Church has authority independent of the Word but because the Word itself vests authority in the Church to teach and commands men to listen and submit to its Officers.


----------



## NRB

Semper Fidelis said:


> I believe you are misapprehending the substance of my concern. I'm not arguing for a _Regula Fide_ where authority is granted to Church dogma as being on par with Scripture but for an _Analogia Scriptura_ where Pastors and Teachers are seen in Scripture as having a task to lead the Church to the unity of the faith. I'm not arguing for a lack of personal study or scrutiny of the Scriptures but that individuals within the Church need to understand that the Word is given corporately for the edification of the whole Body and not merely individually.
> 
> It is not the case that Scripture commands a man to come to a knowledge of the things of God independently of the Church and then simply find a collection of like-minded individuals who agree with his independent conclusions about the Scriptures. Rather, the Church is constituted by the Word of God to disciple men and women and teach them everything that Christ has commanded and humble submission is often required by men to submit to the teaching authority of the Church - not because the Church has authority independent of the Word but because the Word itself vests authority in the Church to teach and commands men to listen and submit to its Officers.




I agree and the last of 5 questions asked of new members in the PCA deals explicitly with submission to the elders of the church in doctrine.


----------



## Scott1

All I can say is...

_Viva la Analogia Scriptura!_


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> My increasing concern is that we all tend to treat the Scriptures from the standpoint that we don't need any external authority to guide us or bound us in that process. As I read the Word, I am increasingly struck by the fact that God gave His Word to His people. He didn't hand it over to each person individually but, corporately, He gave His Word to the Church. The thing that struck me about studying Gen-Joshua last year was how the Word actually constituted the people of God. God created His Church by His Word. I could probably tighten that up a little bit but I hope that makes sense so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if we'll ever be able to put the modernism genie back in the bottle but I think this lays at the heart of the matter. The idea that we are to be led to the Truth and the unity thereof by Pastors and Elders (Eph 6) is lost on most people who see Truth as emanating from the center of their mind outwardly. This is compounded by the fact that ministers increasingly agree, fundamentally, with this approach because they're willing to stand in complete isolation from the Church at large and teach what the rest of the Body believes is un-Biblical and still insist they are part of the same corporate Body. It's not done with tears that the Body is being ripped asunder but, often, with disdain for the lack of academic or cultural sophistication exhibited by their hayseed contemporaries who are stuck in the past.
> 
> It breaks my heart and I don't know precisely how to fix it. I want to labor for the Body of Christ and strive for Her peace and purity but I often find myself trying to figure out what the Church really Confesses and what She's really abandoned with her Confession and allowed for any variety of views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course what the Roman church stated as its main objection to the reformation and having the scriptures translated to the native tongue. In a sense, they were right. Every man with the ability to read does in fact read the scriptures for themselves, and from that either agrees or disagrees with the church in which he finds himself.
> 
> I would disagree that the church is now just a confederation. We still give authority to the church, but we reserve the right to stand before councils and declare "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."
> 
> We have "let the genie out of the bottle" and it is impossible to put it back. I'm not sure it ought to be put back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are misapprehending the substance of my concern. I'm not arguing for a _Regula Fide_ where authority is granted to Church dogma as being on par with Scripture but for an _Analogia Scriptura_ where Pastors and Teachers are seen in Scripture as having a task to lead the Church to the unity of the faith. I'm not arguing for a lack of personal study or scrutiny of the Scriptures but that individuals within the Church need to understand that the Word is given corporately for the edification of the whole Body and not merely individually.
> 
> It is not the case that Scripture commands a man to come to a knowledge of the things of God independently of the Church and then simply find a collection of like-minded individuals who agree with his independent conclusions about the Scriptures. Rather, the Church is constituted by the Word of God to disciple men and women and teach them everything that Christ has commanded and humble submission is often required by men to submit to the teaching authority of the Church - not because the Church has authority independent of the Word but because the Word itself vests authority in the Church to teach and commands men to listen and submit to its Officers.
Click to expand...


Thanks. That's a very excellent way of putting it.


----------



## Christusregnat

The WCF and attendant productions of the Westminster Assembly were intended to be taken as a national standard of doctrine and worship in both church and state. They have been minimized to bare ecclesiastical or personal affirmations, and have thereby lost their force and highest usefulness. This shift (which I would date somewhere around the Enlightenment) has not been for the better. Oh, and I voted #1 

Cheers,


----------



## jawyman

Casey said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do members who aren't officers technically "subscribe" to anything? (in the context of the OPC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Casey, technically members should (and most do) subscribe to the Westminster Confession. When someone becomes a member they are now under the authority of the Session and the Session is responsible to make sure covenant children as well as adult members are catechize properly. This would include studying, understanding, and subscribing to the Confession of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, my question was not clear -- and I didn't intend to direct it solely at you.  Is "subscription" merely a personal decision (non-officers)? Or does "subscription" mean something more, namely, a public vow (officers)? Or can it mean both?
Click to expand...


No, a member does not have to subscribe to the Standards, but it is usually understood. I am sorry this is rather lengthy, but this comes directly from the Directory of Public Worship,

_CHAPTER V

PUBLIC PROFESSION OF FAITH IN Christ

1. In order to aid those who contemplate making public profession of faith in Christ to understand the implication of this significant act and to perform it intelligently, the pastor shall conduct classes in Christian doctrine both for the covenant youth and for any others who may manifest an interest in the way of salvation.

2. Before permitting any one to make profession of his faith in the presence of the congregation, the session shall examine him in order to assure itself so far as possible that he possesses the doctrinal knowledge requisite for active faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, relies for salvation on the merits of Christ alone, and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.

3. When the session is satisfied that any one is qualified to make public profession of faith in Christ, his name shall be publicly announced to the church at least one week before the day chosen for this solemn event, in order that the members of the church may have opportunity to acquaint the session with such facts concerning him as may appear to be irreconcilable with a sincere profession. The session shall weigh such evidence and determine its validity.

4. No one shall be allowed to take part in the celebration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper who has not first made public profession of faith in Jesus Christ as his Saviour and Lord.

5. On the occasion of public profession of faith in Christ, the minister shall address the candidate in these or like words, using the form which the circumstances require:

Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ, we thank our God for the grace which was given you, in that, having come to years of discretion, you have accepted God's covenant promise which was signified and sealed unto you in your infancy by holy baptism.
Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ, we thank our God for the grace which was given you, in that, although you have not been privileged to receive the sacrament of baptism in your infancy, nevertheless, through faith you have become a partaker of the covenant of grace.
Thereupon the minister shall ask these, or equivalent, questions:

Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify your old nature, and to lead a godly life?
Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?
When any one has publicly professed his faith by answering these questions in the affirmative, the minister shall address him in the following or like words:

Beloved, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ I welcome you to all the privileges of full communion with God's people, and in particular to participation in the sacrament of the holy supper. I charge you that by the faithful use of the means of grace—the Word of God, the sacraments and prayer—and in humble reliance upon the grace of God, you continue steadfastly in the confession which you have made. Rest assured that if you confess Christ before men, he will confess you before his Father who is in heaven. May the God of all grace, who called you unto his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, perfect, establish, and strengthen you. To him be the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
This part of the service shall be concluded with an appropriate prayer._

A credible profession of Christ is necessary for membership, not subscriptionism. Again, I would add though if someone is going to join a truly Reformed church they are going to become familiar with Westminster or the 3 Forms. I hope this helps a little.


----------



## Mushroom

Semper Fidelis said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something the Pastor of our mother Church stated really stuck with me because he was talking about this idea when he recounted a conversation with another man in Presbytery. The minister was telling him that he believed the Scriptures taught X and that the rest of the Presbytery was wrong on this issue. Doug gently rebuked him and stated: "No, we confess the Scriptures together. If we disagree on something then we need to labor together to resolve this."
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, the last time I attended Doug Kitteridge's Church, it was an independent reformed congregation. I know they have joined the PCA since then. Was this confessionalism he now holds a progressive realization, or was he confessional back when they were independent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doug has definitely grown in his Confessional subscription. To his credit and humility he realized that a Church that has no real Confessional moorings is rife with problems. It cost him a great deal personally when the Church moved into the PCA about 12 years ago.
Click to expand...

Rich, not to be contentious, but this fact raises a question in my mind. Doug was a Pastor, definitely an Officer of New Life, when I attended nearly 20 years ago. Should I have submitted to his view of the Confession then? And now that he has changed somewhat, should a member there have changed right in step with him? Was he in error then? I know that he didn't seem to think he was, just as I'm sure he doesn't think himself to be now. I agree with the idea that the Church holds to the Confession because it corporately (meaning the leadership thereof) holds it to be biblical. But the poll addressed individuals' subscription. Wouldn't Doug's (a man we both hold in high regard) changing views point out that while the Church may declare a thing so, the individuals who make up the Church can grow in understanding, and therefore subscription? And even the faithful leaders and ministers can change their views, thus changing even the position of the Church itself, as it did with New Life?

Because of the change I have seen in my own views over time, I have to say that individually, I subscribe to it insofar as it is biblical. What I see as biblical has changed over time, just like Doug, so I am leery of declaring that I KNOW I am right on every point of what is biblical, and what is confessional, but scripture will always trump anything else.

Does that reflect modernism affecting my thinking?


----------



## MW

Brad said:


> Does that reflect modernism affecting my thinking?



I think it reflects confusion amongst those who have been taught sola scriptura in recent decades. People today tend to think of Scripture abstractly in terms of letters and ink. There seems to be a modern inability to think of it concretely as that which Scripture teaches. Remarkably, the reformed repudiated the idea of an abstract Scripture, but today it seems it has won the day.


----------



## TaylorWest

PCA BCO 26-3 would not be necessary if the WCF was biblical. We don't 'amend' the Bible, but we can, and should, amend the WCF to be more biblical.



> 26-3. Amendments to the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter
> Catechisms may be made only in the following manner:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Approval of the proposed amendment by three-fourths (3/4) of
> those present and voting in the General Assembly, and its
> recommendation to the Presbyteries.
> 2. The advice and consent of three-fourths (3/4) of the Presbyteries.
> 3. The approval and enactment by a subsequent General Assembly
> by three-fourths (3/4) of those present and voting.
> 
> 
> 
> This paragraph (BCO 26-3) can be amended only by the same method
> prescribed for the amendment of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of
> the church.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

TaylorWest said:


> PCA BCO 26-3 would not be necessary if the WCF was biblical. We don't 'amend' the Bible, but we can, and should, amend the WCF to be more biblical.



Strangely, that is precisely what most Presbyterian churches do -- they regularly emend the Bible while leaving the Confession mostly as it is.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might disagree with how you define it. While I am sure the churches are very reluctant to redefine the confession, they have done so in the past. They may do so in the future if they find things they believe are contradictory to the scripture within the confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said the church is built on the rock of its confession. If the confession changes it ipso facto becomes a different church. No doubt the church should have the integrity to repudiate past errors, but in doing so it repudiates itself for teaching those past errors, for binding its teachers and overseers to assert, maintain, and defend them, and for imposing them as articles of faith to be believed. Yet rarely do revisionists approach the work of revision with a sense of the enormity of their past transgressions. The failure to understand these things indicates that the confession of faith is not functioning as a confession of faith but as a mere text of historical theology.
Click to expand...

While I respect you greatly, I do not think the passage you quote as being what you state. Jesus said he will build his church on that specific confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." I think you overshoot the meaning of the text to say that the confession defines the church. Particularly, it is important for a church to continually search through the doctrines it teaches, and know that the church is imperfect in this age, and as such much continually seek the purity of doctrine that she will only find in the age to come. It is part of the nature of the fall that we have erred and are subject to such influence from our circumstance that we do not see those areas in which we have erred.

While making any revision to the standards should be done with great care, it should be continually done with the same grace that we give to those whom we seek to correct in any area of life or doctrine. If we cannot remove the log from our own eye, we will never see clearly to remove the speck from our neighbor's eye. When the church sees error in her standards and is unwilling to correct it, the church then is guilty of contumacy, not willing to listen to the correction of scripture.


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only document beyond the authority/power of the church is the scripture. It alone defines the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Scripture" can be claimed by heretics. It is the truth of Scripture, what it teaches, which defines the church. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. No man can lay any other foundation than Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confession states otherwise, at least in the original 1647 version.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what the Long Parliament was doing when it called the Assembly of divines which produced the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Click to expand...


Dear brother, yes, that is what the Long Parliament did by God's providence which rules over all. Yet by God's providence, the confession was in fact modified to give differing spheres of operation later by those that saw the original persons of the Westminster Assembly as being a product of their times, and not speaking the pure doctrine of the scriptures. I realize your church may not have realized the errors in the original document, and so you are still under that system which is erroneously of the thought that the civil magistrate still has the authority to call church councils.

Please note, while I understand this is not generally agreed to, I truly believe it is the case that the OPC and PCA have a more nearly perfect confession than those that are still using the 1647 version. We should continue to be looking and searching the scripture daily, in private and corporately, to see if these things are true ... even as the Berean church search the scripture to see if the things Paul said were true. It is not that I have any particular "bone to pick" with the confession, but I acknowledge that it is not infallible. It has been changed in the past by Godly men searching the scripture and finding the original confession lacking because those men (even as we) were a product of their times. Great respect is due both the work and the workers, but not so much respect that we become confessionalists and hold the confession to be the primary document that defines how we read the scripture.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Jesus said he will build his church on that specific confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."



That is correct; He did not say He would build His church on the Scriptures alone. This part of our discussion is settled. Next point.



Brian Withnell said:


> I realize your church may not have realized the errors in the original document, and so you are still under that system which is erroneously of the thought that the civil magistrate still has the authority to call church councils.



Yes, our church still maintains that faith subdues kingdoms and that the kingdom and nation which will not serve the Lord shall perish. Those who call this an "error" can only do so on the supposition that the church of the New Testament is different from the church of the Old Testament -- which is contrary to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Semper Fidelis said:


> I believe you are misapprehending the substance of my concern. I'm not arguing for a _Regula Fide_ where authority is granted to Church dogma as being on par with Scripture but for an _Analogia Scriptura_ where Pastors and Teachers are seen in Scripture as having a task to lead the Church to the unity of the faith. I'm not arguing for a lack of personal study or scrutiny of the Scriptures but that individuals within the Church need to understand that the Word is given corporately for the edification of the whole Body and not merely individually.
> 
> It is not the case that Scripture commands a man to come to a knowledge of the things of God independently of the Church and then simply find a collection of like-minded individuals who agree with his independent conclusions about the Scriptures. Rather, the Church is constituted by the Word of God to disciple men and women and teach them everything that Christ has commanded and humble submission is often required by men to submit to the teaching authority of the Church - not because the Church has authority independent of the Word but because the Word itself vests authority in the Church to teach and commands men to listen and submit to its Officers.



I think you are overstating my view as well. Of course I agree with authority within the church ... I am presbyterian by conviction. Yet I also know the church must remain faithful, and that individuals are responsible ultimately to God and his Word for doing what is right. Dr. Luther was acting within his authority within the church (as a doctor of theology) to state his apprehensions and call the church to repent. The church though disciplined him and demanded he recant what it called error, and the man, Martin Luther, refused and stood upon scripture for his basis.

While I am not a doctor of theology within the church, I also must determine what church among the throng of those that now exist is confessing what I believe the scriptures to contain (as I am a "brand snatched from the fire" and not raised in a church-going home, it was incumbent upon me from the beginning). So how should a person in such a position decide?

Also, what of someone that starts in something other than a reformed church, as they learn more of scripture and the truth do if they find themselves out of accord with a church that not only teaches error, but refuses to listen to the scripture itself as authoritative? Would we not commend them to a more Bible centered church? I know I would.

There are times when individuals must make such decisions as a "lesser magistrate" within a family for the good of his family, yet doing so should always be with great fear and trepidation for the very reasons you cite. The church does have authority, and it is a grave decision to state the church unwilling to change from error. While there is is authority within the church, it is also possible for the church to abuse that authority. That is why the reformation occurred. It is still possible and does occur however rarely, that those in this age are confronted by church leaders that have left the path that Christ has blazed. There are those that post messages here that call attention to pastors that are teaching error. There are advertisements in my mail nearly every week for churches that are attracting people for all the wrong reasons.

Those in churches outside the presbyterian form of government have to rely on a single set of church leaders to keep the church on the right path ... those without a board of elders would have to rely on a single pastor to keep a church pure. Even if they were confessional, the purity of the church would always be up to the interpretation of that confession by the authority within the church.

I view the confession as a good thing. It is as far as any work of men, the closest to what I have seen in scripture, and I desire and have found fellowship within a church that takes that confession seriously. I do not however hold that any man other than the God-Man, Christ Jesus, to be without error and thus worthy of unquestioned obedience. My session and pastor I trust greatly and have never found an occasion to think them wrong. Yet I check the scriptures when they speak and thereby know them to be speaking the truth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brian,

I have neither overstated or understated your case. You impiously equated my presentation as amounting to Roman Catholicism and I extended my remarks.


----------



## charliejunfan

Numba 1


----------



## Mushroom

> impiously


Curious use of the word, brother. I find the following definitions:


> impious - lacking piety or reverence for a god
> impious - lacking due respect or dutifulness; "impious toward one's parents"; "an undutiful son"


Did you mean either of these, or another I haven't found? Who was Brian being impious toward?

-----Added 11/13/2009 at 09:04:43 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that reflect modernism affecting my thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it reflects confusion amongst those who have been taught sola scriptura in recent decades. People today tend to think of Scripture abstractly in terms of letters and ink. There seems to be a modern inability to think of it concretely as that which Scripture teaches. Remarkably, the reformed repudiated the idea of an abstract Scripture, but today it seems it has won the day.
Click to expand...

Matthew, I in no way reject sola scriptura. What I do reject is the concept that I grasp perfectly what the scriptures teach. Perhaps you have no such qualms as to your own understanding of it, and if so, I tip my hat to you.

I would ask if you have always held to the same beliefs about scripture that you do now? Do you contend that you and the Confession to which you subscribe are without error whatsoever now?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The statement lacked piety.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brad said:


> Matthew, I in no way reject sola scriptura. What I do reject is the concept that I grasp perfectly what the scriptures teach. Perhaps you have no such qualms as to your own understanding of it, and if so, I tip my hat to you.
> 
> I would ask if you have always held to the same beliefs about scripture that you do now? Do you contend that you and the Confession to which you subscribe are without error whatsoever now?



Actually, Brad, you are rejecting Sola Scriptura because what you are describing is not what the Reformed meant by the term. What you are describing is Solo Scriptura.

I think you're missing the point here. It is not perfect apprehension that is argued for here. In fact, it is the danger that is avoided in Confessing and wrestling with the Scriptures corporately rather than merely individually.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said he will build his church on that specific confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct; He did not say He would build His church on the Scriptures alone. This part of our discussion is settled. Next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize your church may not have realized the errors in the original document, and so you are still under that system which is erroneously of the thought that the civil magistrate still has the authority to call church councils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, our church still maintains that faith subdues kingdoms and that the kingdom and nation which will not serve the Lord shall perish. Those who call this an "error" can only do so on the supposition that the church of the New Testament is different from the church of the Old Testament -- which is contrary to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession.
Click to expand...


You state too much. I do not suppose the church of the NT is different from the church of the OT, yet I still state the administration of the OT kingdom of Israel ended with that nation, and that nations will rise and fall, but the church is not subject to them in the sphere in which it operates. So your premise is false ... the premise is that the reason for rejecting the original confessional language is that a supposition that of falsehood for "faith subdues kingdoms and that the kingdom and nation which will not serve the Lord shall perish" which is not the reason for rejection of the original language. The straw man that you set up is false. We reject the language because it is not Biblical in the first place. Nebuchadnezzar was not authorized to call church councils to settle matters of doctrine.

My premise is that the original divines had no concept of church and state operating in completely separate spheres and that the church was not part of the state, and state not part of the church. My premise is his kingdom is not of this world, and while the civil magistrate is to provide order and peace, they have no authority within the sphere of spiritual. It is also my premise that all the nations will fall (1 Cor 15:24) for Christ will do away with them. My premise is that the original cannot be supported from scripture apart from the civil government of Israel, and those laws passed with that nation and are no longer binding on any, other than the general equity thereof may require.

-----Added 11/13/2009 at 09:21:46 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> Brian,
> 
> I have neither overstated or understated your case. You impiously equated my presentation as amounting to Roman Catholicism and I extended my remarks.



That was not my intent at all. If that is what you thought, please forgive my poor expression of thought!

My point was not that your expression was RC, God forbid! My expression was that while the RC position is untenable, their objection did in fact come about (even though it is far less heinous than what they had contrived.)

Again, please forgive my poor expression. I did not intend to have you saying things I never for a second believe you were saying!


----------



## MW

Brad said:


> I would ask if you have always held to the same beliefs about scripture that you do now? Do you contend that you and the Confession to which you subscribe are without error whatsoever now?



That an individual might change his mind while he struggles to come to terms with what the Confession teaches is irrelevant to the issue of confessional subscription. At the point at which one becomes an office-bearer in the church he is supposed to have learned the Christian faith to a point that he is capable of passing it on to others. The Confession defines what he has learned and is obliged to pass on.

On the second question -- for a confession to serve as a confession in the proper sense of the term it must be what the church adopting it and the officer subscribing it understand the "truth" to be. Unless one thinks truth contains error and there is no way of clearly distinguishing the two, it necessarily follows that the church and officer consider it to be without error in terms of what it teaches.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> You state too much. I do not suppose the church of the NT is different from the church of the OT, yet I still state the administration of the OT kingdom of Israel ended with that nation, and that nations will rise and fall, but the church is not subject to them in the sphere in which it operates.



So does the Confession, WCF 23.3, 30.1, yet you blame the Confession for an error in this regard.



Brian Withnell said:


> My premise is that the original divines had no concept of church and state operating in completely separate spheres and that the church was not part of the state, and state not part of the church.



Perhaps you should read the writings of George Gillespie so that you might learn something of what the divines understood in this regard. Your assertions lack all historical basis.


----------



## Mushroom

> Actually, Brad, you are rejecting Sola Scriptura because what you are describing is not what the Reformed meant by the term. What you are describing is Solo Scriptura.


Maybe I'm not stating things clearly, but I am not arguing for any sort of autonomy in the interpretation of scripture, nor am I rejecting the authority of the Church or the validity of Her Confessions.. I am only declaring a lack of confidence in my own ability to understand anything comprehensively. On that basis I will say that "Let God be true and every man a liar", especially myself.


> I think you're missing the point here. It is not perfect apprehension that is argued for here. In fact, it is the danger that is avoided in Confessing and wrestling with the Scriptures corporately rather than merely individually.


Perhaps my confusion derives from the poll asking "I subscribe" rather than "we subscribe". I trust my Church far more than I trust myself to understand the Word.

But the question remains, you and I both came out of what we would now call error. That being the case, were we being individualistic or adhering to solo scriptura when we left those errors?


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You state too much. I do not suppose the church of the NT is different from the church of the OT, yet I still state the administration of the OT kingdom of Israel ended with that nation, and that nations will rise and fall, but the church is not subject to them in the sphere in which it operates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does the Confession, WCF 23.3, 30.1, yet you blame the Confession for an error in this regard.
Click to expand...

Original wording:


> III. 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.*



The bold of the original I take great exception to, and not to the corrected version:


> 3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. 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, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.


which I accept completely.



> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My premise is that the original divines had no concept of church and state operating in completely separate spheres and that the church was not part of the state, and state not part of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should read the writings of George Gillespie so that you might learn something of what the divines understood in this regard. Your assertions lack all historical basis.
Click to expand...


If I took him as being completely authoritative, I might change my mind on the point, but that we cannot remove ourselves from our context without err I take as nearly axiomatic. We understand things in terms of what we know and have learned. It is nearly impossible for us to understand from a point of view totally foreign to us, and we will in this age do so only imperfectly. That is one reason why the challenge of understanding scripture is so difficult ... we cannot remove ourselves from our own context.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brad said:


> Actually, Brad, you are rejecting Sola Scriptura because what you are describing is not what the Reformed meant by the term. What you are describing is Solo Scriptura.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm not stating things clearly, but I am not arguing for any sort of autonomy in the interpretation of scripture, nor am I rejecting the authority of the Church or the validity of Her Confessions.. I am only declaring a lack of confidence in my own ability to understand anything comprehensively. On that basis I will say that "Let God be true and every man a liar", especially myself.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point here. It is not perfect apprehension that is argued for here. In fact, it is the danger that is avoided in Confessing and wrestling with the Scriptures corporately rather than merely individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps my confusion derives from the poll asking "I subscribe" rather than "we subscribe". I trust my Church far more than I trust myself to understand the Word.
> 
> But the question remains, you and I both came out of what we would now call error. That being the case, were we being individualistic or adhering to solo scriptura when we left those errors?
Click to expand...




No, I do not believe so. See WCF I. Even being convinced of the Truth of the Word is not individualistic but is a work of the Holy Spirit. I think a more apt description was that you and I were sought out by a good Shepherd who brought us into His sheepfold where we are to be trained by under-shepherds commissioned by the Good Shepherd.


----------



## Mushroom

> That an individual might change his mind while he struggles to come to terms with what the Confession teaches is irrelevant to the issue of confessional subscription. At the point at which one becomes an office-bearer in the church he is supposed to have learned the Christian faith to a point that he is capable of passing it on to others. The Confession defines what he has learned and is obliged to pass on.


Well, conceding my own disqualification for Church Office, I get to dodge that bullet. I answer the poll as a mere layman.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> The bold of the original I take great exception to,



It is the unemboldened qualifying statement which repudiates your imputation that the divines did not teach separate spheres: "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 you read the Confession with this statement in mind you could not possibly come to the conclusion you have drawn.



Brian Withnell said:


> If I took him as being completely authoritative, I might change my mind on the point, but that we cannot remove ourselves from our context without err I take as nearly axiomatic.



You are showing complete ignorance of the context within which the Assembly worked.

If error is nearly axiomatic for you then why aren't you willing to acknowledge your error that error is nearly axiomatic.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Semper Fidelis said:


> No, I do not believe so. See WCF I. Even being convinced of the Truth of the Word is not individualistic but is a work of the Holy Spirit. I think a good analogy would being sought out by a good Shepherd who brings a man into His sheepfold where he is trained by under-shepherds commissioned by the Good Shepherd.



I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with ... and least I put words in your mouth, please clarify.

As to the analogy, I'd ask the question of very practical concern, when I was first a Christian, young in the faith and not well trained, I attended a church that rejected the Bible as authoritative. I left that church when I realized their doctrine was so corrupt. I am not positive they were completely corrupt, but I knew they were far from the pure doctrine of the Word. Does that mean I sinned in leaving it, or was the Good Shepard leading me through a path that eventually brought me to a wide pasture with good grass and still water?

I see around me many churches that are less than ideal. Some are no churches at all, but have become so corrupt to be "synagogues of Satan". I would think that even as a true church declines, there may be some within the congregation who are the elect; and at some point they should flee. So from a practicality standpoint, those individuals would have to actually leave would they not?

I'm NOT trying to say this is the general position that we should all have a chip on our shoulder and be ready to leave the church over the color of carpet as if that were worthy of our separating ourselves. But if someone were teaching that my son's baptism was not "real" I would leave as it would be improper for me to subject him to such teaching.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I was responding to Brad. I don't believe in coincidence but Providence. Providence includes preparatory grace and any other number of things that most typically only attribute to personal decision.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bold of the original I take great exception to,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the unemboldened qualifying statement which repudiates your imputation that the divines did not teach separate spheres: "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 you read the Confession with this statement in mind you could not possibly come to the conclusion you have drawn.
> [\quote]
> Not only do you have to argue that against me, but the entire OPC, PCA and many minds greater than my poor intellect. The bolded portion is what was changed ... and the reasons where much in line with what I have stated. So I would argue that conclusion I have drawn was drawn by many (an entire General Assembly and the Presbyteries in the U.S. at the time of the change.) So it is not just me seeing that it is not an illogical conclusion, but many minds that have drawn the same conclusion. The unbolded is so limited in scope that it was too narrow and allowed the bolded to extend too far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I took him as being completely authoritative, I might change my mind on the point, but that we cannot remove ourselves from our context without err I take as nearly axiomatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are showing complete ignorance of the context within which the Assembly worked.
> 
> If error is nearly axiomatic for you then why aren't you willing to acknowledge your error that error is nearly axiomatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not working in complete ignorance of the context within which the Assembly worked, but neither am I working from the same presuppositions that you are. While I acknowledge my own error (for there is error in all that we do in every area) I believe my error (and that of the OPC and PCA and other denominations that accept the revisions) are less than the error of the original and those that stand by it.
> 
> But let me be sure to say one more thing ... while we debate such things, I also feel they are minor. I would have much more to disagree with in the LBCF, and all of those are minor as well. Would that all churches held to *any* of the reformed confessions!
Click to expand...


----------



## Mushroom

Semper Fidelis said:


> I was responding to Brad. I don't believe in coincidence but Providence. Providence includes preparatory grace and any other number of things that most typically only attribute to personal decision.


Brother! You smoked out another vestige of autonomy hiding in my head! Cool! And thank you!

I really mean that.

One last question: What is the proper view of one's own imperfect apprehension and how does that work out in our subscription to the Confession?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Semper Fidelis said:


> I was responding to Brad. I don't believe in coincidence but Providence. Providence includes preparatory grace and any other number of things that most typically only attribute to personal decision.



Proximity ... I must have posted just prior to your post, and so thought you were responding to my post.

I would of course agree ... providence is pervasive. (Ooo, I like that!)


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Not only do you have to argue that against me, but the entire OPC, PCA and many minds greater than my poor intellect. The bolded portion is what was changed ... and the reasons where much in line with what I have stated.



Why don't you read up on the subject before pontificating in this manner? The revision merely adapted the confession to a mild voluntaryist position in keeping with the new situation. The revision does not pronounce the false aspersions you have cast on the original confession. The revision still maintains the nursing-father role of the civil magistrate.



Brian Withnell said:


> While I acknowledge my own error (for there is error in all that we do in every area) I believe my error (and that of the OPC and PCA and other denominations that accept the revisions) are less than the error of the original and those that stand by it.



Well, by your own confession, you have to regard this statement as error, in accord with your nearly axiomatic acceptance of error.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brad said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to Brad. I don't believe in coincidence but Providence. Providence includes preparatory grace and any other number of things that most typically only attribute to personal decision.
> 
> 
> 
> Brother! You smoked out another vestige of autonomy hiding in my head! Cool! And thank you!
> 
> I really mean that.
> 
> One last question: What is the proper view of one's own imperfect apprehension and how does that work out in our subscription to the Confession?
Click to expand...


Humility. I'm not sure how else to answer it. Nobody has perfect apprehension. I think there's great wisdom in the Presbyterian form of government. We all agree that one of the benefits of our American political system is how difficult it is to change a Constitution. We all grate at how people take the easy way out for expediency and simply walk around it by treating it as a "living document". Interestingly, when one reads _The Divine Right of Church government_, the ministers who wrote that document appealed to the light of nature as one of the arguments for the Presbyterian form of government. In other words, it makes sense.

We need our brothers and sisters in Christ. We need them as a check against indwelling sin. We need our Elders. We have been given them by Christ that they might watch over our souls. The exceptions only prove the rule when we are frustrated by those that fail. Our elders need each other to strive with one another and labor with one another. Changing what the Church is about should never be easy and the recognition that we have imperfect apprehension is a _good_ thing. I worry more about those that act as if they understand enough to ignore the counsel of fellow elders.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do you have to argue that against me, but the entire OPC, PCA and many minds greater than my poor intellect. The bolded portion is what was changed ... and the reasons where much in line with what I have stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you read up on the subject before pontificating in this manner? The revision merely adapted the confession to a mild voluntaryist position in keeping with the new situation. The revision does not pronounce the false aspersions you have cast on the original confession. The revision still maintains the nursing-father role of the civil magistrate.
Click to expand...

We must be listening to different sources. The OPC version specifically removes anything dealing with doctrine from the civil magistrate. I'm sure that some of what you are reading is from your perspective.


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I acknowledge my own error (for there is error in all that we do in every area) I believe my error (and that of the OPC and PCA and other denominations that accept the revisions) are less than the error of the original and those that stand by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, by your own confession, you have to regard this statement as error, in accord with your nearly axiomatic acceptance of error.
Click to expand...


Principle ... while not everything is pure error, nearly everything contains more or less error, even the church (25.5) and so there is some error in nearly every statement. If it were not so, one would be stating perfection exists in some area of being of men (not throughout the whole man) and then such a person would be in conflict with 13.2 of the confession ... which is the source from which I get a near axiomatic view (near, as it is not the scripture itself) of everything that is human in origin is less than pure. (Including our ability to think logically.)


----------



## charliejunfan

I confess the Original Westminster Standards as biblical in their entirety UNTIL I find something in them that is UNbiblical in my estimation, then I proceed to read further exposition on the matter while using the confession as my foremost bias. If I were to disagree with the Standards and the godly men who wrote them I would do so with a skeptical of self mindset. Insofar as my study of the confession goes I have not been able to disagree with ANYTHING, but I am not UNchangable. 
I went from scripture to the confession and back to scripture to the confession, I then adopted the confession as my presupposition that must constantly be tested by other views and different passages of scripture.


----------

