# Question on the Cumberland Presbyterian confessional document



## Wayne (Feb 11, 2011)

I am pleased to add today to the PCA Historical Center's research library a copy of the Confession of Faith and Government of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in the Chinese language.

But the accession of this volume raises a question I hadn't taken the time to explore previously. 

What exactly are the differences between the WCF and the Cumberland document? Are they too numerous to map out? See this page for more on their confessional standards:
1883 Preface - Confession of Faith - Cumberland Presbyterian Church

That same page also presents these four points as a summary of their position and why they separated from the PCUSA in 1810:
I. That there are no eternal reprobates.
2. That Christ died not for a part only, but for all mankind.
3. That all infants dying in infancy are saved through Christ and the sanctification of the Spirit.
4. That the Spirit of God operates on the world, or as co-extensively as Christ has made atonement, in such a manner as to leave all men inexcusable.

How would we best characterize the Cumberlands? Robert Reymond taught clearly that Arminianism is properly defined as teaching the governmental theory of atonement. I don't think that is the Cumberland position. Are they instead simply evangelical universalists?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 11, 2011)

Warfield gives the history of the printing of the Cumberland church's standards and comments on the doctrinal diff.
*http://tinyurl.com/4zaylv3*


----------



## Wayne (Feb 11, 2011)

Praise God for Warfield's ability to sort out the otherwise innumerable differences!

Thanks, Chris. Just what I needed.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2011)

Wayne said:


> How would we best characterize the Cumberlands? Robert Reymond taught clearly that Arminianism is properly defined as teaching the governmental theory of atonement.



My understanding is that that is not the position of a lot of professing Arminians, a good many of whom hold to the substitutionary atonement. I know a Wesleyan pastor who does. I may be wrong but I think I remember reading in Dabney's _Christ Our Penal Substitute_ that Wesley himself held to penal substitution. 

Was Reymond's point perhaps that _consistent_ Arminianism demands the governmental theory?

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

I think that there is at least one Cumberland Presbyterian minister who is a member of this board.


----------



## Wayne (Feb 11, 2011)

> Was Reymond's point perhaps that consistent Arminianism demands the governmental theory?



Perhaps so. Time to dig out the old notes.


----------

