# Thought Provoking Article on Confessionalism in the PCA, ARP, OPC, etc...



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 10, 2011)

Here are a couple of snippets to whet the appetite.

Towards a Confessional Hermeneutic: Some Suggestions (with a bit of commentary) - Reformation21 Blog



> ...In practice nobody consistently regards authorial intent as decisive. For example, there are those who champion the Westminster regulative principle of worship and yet see no contradiction in singing hymns (something originally understood to be precluded by that principle). I'm also struck by the way that even the most ardent sabbatarian today does not observe the Sabbath with near the rigor that is implied by the language of WLC QQ. 115-121. The confessional reasoning behind the 1722 deposition of a minister by New Castle Presbytery for bathing in a creek on the Sabbath is undoubtedly closer to authorial intent. Finally, WLC QQ. 124-133 clearly assume the British class system of the seventeenth century (and would not have been written apart from that social context), and yet I do not hear the strict-subscriptionist champions of authorial intent, who tend to be quite Whiggish and republican in their social sentiments, calling for confessional revisions here. In short, a focus on authorial intent at the expense of subsequent interpretive history and the authority of the believing community results in an unfortunate selectivity as intent is appealed to when it is convenient and ignored it when it is not.





> ...Confessions in themselves are no guarantee of theological fidelity. We must be realistic about what confessions can and cannot do. While often extraordinarily helpful, they are no substitute for careful exegesis, theological reflection, and ongoing attention to the way these are fleshed out in the life of the confessing community. Today, however, unrealistic expectations of confessions abound. For example, some today seem to view the church as constituted by its confession, and many regard confessions as a "silver bullet" solution to the problem of doctrinal declension. A danger here is that confessions may become an end in themselves and that the resulting confessionalism may degenerate into bald appeals to authority for its own sake. This, however, only signals the incipient death of a confessional tradition.


----------



## sastark (Oct 10, 2011)

As much as I like Dr. Evans, I think he is wrong on this one. It seems to me he is advocating a kind of "living document" approach to the Confessions (for example, when he writes: "3. Confessions belong to the interpretive communities that own them."). I realize he tries to guard against this ("we don't want the confessions to become "noses of wax" twisted this way and that, and I hope that nothing said here is taken as endorsing a casual or cavalier attitude toward such documents.", but that seems to be what he's driving towards, intentionally or not. Almost as if he is saying the Confession means what each generation interprets it to mean. 

That certain parts of the Standards have not been upheld (Sabbath observance) is no reason to allow further deviation (six day creation)!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 10, 2011)

The fact that churches have ignorantly or otherwise imposed on the standards, new meanings or different or broader, over time is not an argument that we should allow that. The church should be diligent to modify their standards only via a constitutional process. That's what officers vow to do right?


----------



## sdesocio (Oct 10, 2011)

I really liked this article. I think he also brings up and important part that many people don't hold to strictly hold to everything.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 10, 2011)

It's nothing new that there is an _animus imponentis_ with regard to the Confession, and of course that _animus imponentis_ varies from denomination to denomination, and from age to age. But if the _animus imponentis_ goes against the text of the Confession that creates a great problem; because unless it is written down, how can one know what the doctrine actually is? And if you can write down an interpretation that goes against the text, why can't you revise your Confession instead of giving constitutional status to a contradiction? 

I saw no reason to accept his _ipse dixit_ on what the framers meant by "in the space of six days" - it really isn't a hard question. It's a simple phrase that has a straightforward meaning.

And in his first point, he rather begs the question by his mode of expression. In one sense it is true that we affirm the confessions insofar as they are biblical. But when it comes to subscription, those cannot be the terms in which someone promises fidelity to a confession. At that level, you must accept them _because_ they are Biblical, not _insofar_ as they are Biblical. Otherwise a Mormon could become an elder in a Presbyterian church - there is nothing to prevent me rejecting a confession _in toto_ if I only promise to receive insofar as I deem it to be Biblical. That covers a range that could extend from never saying anything not contained in the Confession, to thinking that they got two phrases right.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2011)

I'm afraid this article is fitted to provoke confusing thoughts. Something a little more substantial and helpful is to be found in the approach of William Paley:



> The animus imponentis, which is the measure of the juror's duty, seems to be satisfied, when nothing is omitted, but what, from some change in the circumstances under which it was prescribed, it may fairly be presumed that *the founder himself would have dispensed with*.
> To bring a case within this rule, the inconveniency must—
> 1. Be manifest; concerning which there is no doubt.
> 2. It must arise from some change in the circumstances of the institution: for, let the inconveniency be what it will, if it existed at the time of the foundation, it must be presumed that the founder did not deem the avoiding of it of sufficient importance to alter his plan.
> 3. The direction of the statute must not only be inconvenient in the general (for so may the institution itself be,) but prejudicial to the particular end proposed by the institution: for, it is this last circumstance which proves that the founder would have dispensed with it in pursuance of his own purpose.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 11, 2011)

I almost don't know where to begin in my thoughts about this article. It seems to me that it highlights what I find most troubling about how many of us approach any document.

First, he brings up Genesis 1 as an example:


> Here literal six-day creationism provides a useful example. On the one hand, advocates of this approach often employ a "common-sense" hermeneutic in their interpretation of Genesis 1--the days of creation are read in terms of how they think the average person today will read them (what I have elsewhere termed "exegetical populism"), but with little sustained attention to how this material would have been read in its original ancient Near Eastern context and to the implications of that ANE data for how we should read the text today. On the other hand, the Westminster Confession's reference to creation taking place "in the space of six days" is often read in what is purported to be a rigorously historical way. Thus there appears to be a difference in this instance between the interpretive methods employed in the interpretation of Genesis 1 (a "common sense" or "populist" hermeneutic) and the methods employed in the interpretation of confessional documents (a more rigorous historical-grammatical approach), and this curious pattern suggests a certain ad hoc selectivity as to method (note that I am not passing judgment here on the question of what the Westminster divines meant by "in the space of six days").



This, it seems, is apropos to the problem at hand. He declares, by fiat, that the "ANE data" dictates that a grammatico-historical reading of Genesis 1 militates against the 6 day view. How? Because we have the writings of pagan cultures and, whatever unregenerate human beings viewed about such things is normative for the Scriptures.

This is part of my problem with how Confessions are taken. People hide their assumptions too much. Nobody is allowed to compare and contrast a former hermeneutic from a current hermeneutic. It is even assumed that we've always had the same approach to the Scriptures and this is all a matter of exegesis. Groups of scholars organize around a given hermeneutic and don't take the time to develop a "prolegomena" that would say to the reader: we are now departing from a hermeneutic in the past and here's where we differ, here is why we differ, and here is why our Reformed forebears in the past held to a differing hermeneutic.

I have to say this is utterly frustrating to me as someone who now has to examine men for candidacy and credentialing. It's almost gotten to the point where issues of hermeneutical difference can't really be challenged but only need to be accepted. Someone tells me in his examination that Moses wrote Genesis 1 as a polemic against Egyptian idolatry and I'm supposed to say: "Oh, OK, that's not in the text of the Scriptures nor in the Confessions but as long as your Professor taught you that and he can draw some sort of speculative line from ANE documents to the Scriptures to substantiate it then I need to be OK with that."

If I could be so bold as to re-write what the good doctor stated:



> Here Paul on justification is useful here. On the one hand, advocates of this approach often employ a "common-sense" hermeneutic in their interpretation of Romans--the doctrine of justification is read in terms of how they think the average person today will read them (what I have elsewhere termed "exegetical populism"), but with little sustained attention to how this material would have been read in its original Second Temple Judaism context and to the implications of that Second Temple data for how we should read the text today. On the other hand, the Westminster Confession's reference to the nature of Justification as "forensic" is often read in what is purported to be a rigorously historical way. Thus there appears to be a difference in this instance between the interpretive methods employed in the interpretation of Romans 3 (a "common sense" or "populist" hermeneutic) and the methods employed in the interpretation of confessional documents (a more rigorous historical-grammatical approach), and this curious pattern suggests a certain ad hoc selectivity as to method (note that I am not passing judgment here on the question of what the Westminster divines meant by "forensic").



Couldn't N.T. Wright have made this point?

The point is that nearly every doctrine in the WCF can be re-cast in this manner. I agree that we cannot ultimately be slavish to the Confessions if that means that we are to be un-thinking about them. My problem is that the reason we cannot rely on people simply stating they agree with the Confessions is because the underlying hermeneutics are often much different than those used by the Divines and many just assume their view is "Biblical" and others are not employing the proper hermeneutics on a given point.

I find it much more troubling, then, that many examinations and discussions on the issues of the Confession don't deal with criticisms of the Confession on a hermeneutical level. Each person simply asserts that their hermeneutical grid is the orthodox and new arrivals on the scene are even able to criticize the Westminster Divines without having to defend their own hermeneutical position as pushing the other away. The Confessions, after a while, will become meaningless. I think we've seen in the PCUSA where a hermeneutic allows men to keep their historic Reformed confessions but it means nothing because the words are easily fit into the grid of choice.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 14, 2011)

Dr. Evans responds mainly to the criticisms of his thoughts on Creation. I found his response to be very disappointing and frankly bothersome.

Ancient Texts and their Modern Appropriation - Reformation21 Blog



> Some have been little more than disappointing expressions of the old "slippery slope" and "camel's nose under the edge of the tent" argument, as if a non-literal reading of Genesis 1 may lead pretty directly to a non-literal reading of the resurrection. More serious and substantial is the gracious post by Carlton Wynne here on Ref21 which deserves an equally serious, substantial, and gracious answer.
> 
> Wynne takes issue with my assertions that the Genesis 1 narrative reflects an ancient cosmology that we do not share, and that this has implications for how literally we can interpret the narrative.





> But there is a deeper danger here. Implicit in Wynne's position is an antithetical dualism that unnecessarily pits Scripture against human knowledge. As he puts it, "As I see it, Christians are obligated to receive the cosmology of Genesis in every detail as the inviolable truth that trumps any competing scientific claim and rebukes every pagan worldview because, as the Divines put it, it is the Word of God." This way of putting it, of course, begs the question of the correctness of Wynne's interpretation of that Genesis cosmology and its role in the narrative, and those are issues to which science may have something important to say. Or, to put the matter more theologically, this disjunction of Scripture and science runs the risk of gutting our doctrine of common grace--the truth that God has graciously equipped us with minds to think and to explore his world. When the antithesis effaces common grace we are, to modify William Butler Yeats' memorable phrase, "slouching toward Fundamentalism."


----------



## py3ak (Oct 14, 2011)

I was disappointed as well when I saw that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 14, 2011)

Which is it? We know that Gen 1-2 is not literal history because it does not fit scientific theories or because it does not fit theories that Moses is writing a polemic against the Egyptian pantheon or because it does not fit with theories that Moses is aping his ANE neighbors and how they wrote covenants?




> Or, to put the matter more theologically, this disjunction of Scripture and science runs the risk of gutting our doctrine of common grace--the truth that God has graciously equipped us with minds to think and to explore his world.



It is not an either/or proposition that we accept special revelation alone and reject general revelation and the data science provides whether I agree completely with the way Wynne puts the issue. Clasically, Reformed thinking has not been that God just puts the world here and gives us minds so that we can use the organ of our mind to autonomously discern reality. We are created in His image to glorify Him and all our knowledge is revelation: either special or general. General revelation is no less true than special revelation but it does not operate on some level independent of God because we have "minds" and "common grace". Natural revelation is not perspicuous to a fallen mind because it refuses to think about things in relation to the Creator. It drives a wedge between God and His creation and so creates any number of theories that account for phenomena as long as they don't relate to God. They may have accurate insights with respect to the phenomena as they exist but they will distort true general revelation because that fact will be thought of as a brute fact with no relationship to its Author or its relation to Him.

Again, I see Dr. Evans unwilling to engage historical Reformed hermeneutics and admitting how he departs from it. Instead he imports some modernity and some theories about ANE cultures influencing Moses' writing and doesn't say, from the start, "my way of looking at these texts is fundamentally different than how the Reformed of the 16th and 17th Centuries looked at them. Consequently, for me to agree with these confessional statements I have to redefine the words they used to allow me to say I subscribe to this particular paragraph of the Confession."

In saying this, I'm not trying to argue that 16th and 17th Century thinking cannot be challenged but, if you're going to challenge the Confessions at a basic hermeneutical level then say you're doing so. Say you're laying a completely new foundation. While you're at it, don't accuse others who might want you to substantiate your reasons as being a bunch of fundies.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 10, 2011)

Here was a very good response by CARLTON WYNNE to Dr. Evans in my opinion on the Reformation 21 blog. 

Here is a portion that is a response to three statements made by Dr. Evans.....



> ...
> 
> Unless I am missing something, the message conveyed in the three statements I quote is that Christians cannot rightly accept the biblical writers' cosmology in every detail since an "enormous amount" of relevant ancient Near Eastern data has revealed that they (unconsciously?) absorbed mythical cosmological elements from surrounding pagan cultures, erroneously believed them to be true, and then wrote their erroneous understanding into the pages of Scripture.
> 
> ...





Modern Debate Over Ancient Texts - Reformation21 Blog


----------

