# I am kind of shocked at this John Frame comment on the WCF....



## lynnie

I really like Frame, always have. 

Just read this:

Response to Jeremy Jones, Renewing Theology


_
3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers. _


If the WCF was written today I believe there might be some things added like maybe creation vs evolution, and a rejection of the low self esteem victim psychology- instead of sin- behind emotional problems. But I thought we all agreed it was a real good basic summary of the main scriptural teachings. Not infallible canon, but excellent. I thought you had to take a vow to that effect to be ordained. I am puzzled by what he means about more theological reflection exactly. I'm still holding to the golden age myself.

Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle




----------



## Marrow Man

He doesn't like the RPW. He's wrong. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I think Dr. Frame was doing what most systematic theologians do. That is asking the provocative questions, while not necessarily implying that these questions were evidence of one's stance on the matter. The questions are valid, yet they do not imply we throw out our Confessions, nor that they have become outdated.

I don't think for a minute that if the WCF were being written today that it would differ substantively from its original content.

In short, I think you are reading too much into Frame's questions.


----------



## he beholds

lynnie said:


> I really like Frame, always have.
> 
> Just read this:
> 
> Response to Jeremy Jones, Renewing Theology
> 
> 
> _
> 3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers. _
> 
> 
> If the WCF was written today I believe there might be some things added like maybe creation vs evolution, and a rejection of the low self esteem victim psychology- instead of sin- behind emotional problems. But I thought we all agreed it was a real good basic summary of the main scriptural teachings. Not infallible canon, but excellent. I thought you had to take a vow to that effect to be ordained. I am puzzled by what he means about more theological reflection exactly. I'm still holding to the golden age myself.
> 
> Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.



I think it is good to question why we do the things we do, so I would not be alarmed at the question. Maybe the answer one gets, but not the act of questioning.


----------



## ww

Marrow Man said:


> He doesn't like the RPW. He's wrong. 'Nuff said.



I think it is his way of  among the future movers and shakers within the PCA and other Reformed denominations. He wants men to think why they embrace the Confessions and how to apply them to today's circumstances not necessarily forsake them. Just my


----------



## DMcFadden

As an outsider to the Presbyterian club . . .

Frame is renown for his scholarship and willingness to challenge any number of points of Westminster theology. As an outsider, it appears to this observer that Dr. Frame's love of music and the arts generally leads him to struggle with the perceived constraints of the RPW. Is it possible that this has been the engine driving his relentless questioning of the Westminster standards over the years?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.



This is the outcome of his theology-as-application approach. In "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" he puts forward the belief that theological meaning is dependent on the meeting of human needs. He maintains theology can change over time and situation. Note, he does not say that the presentation of theology can be adjusted to suit the situation, but that the theology itself is relevant to the situation being addressed. Hence what might be true for one age might not be true for a succeeding age.

You have every reason to be concerned at the introduction of relativism into the theological approach.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

armourbearer said:


> This is the outcome of his theology-as-application approach. In "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" he puts forward the belief that theological meaning is dependent on the meeting of human needs. He maintains theology can change over time and situation. Note, he does not say that the presentation of theology can be adjusted to suit the situation, but that the theology itself is relevant to the situation being addressed. Hence what might be true for one age might not be true for a succeeding age.


I am not following the logical leap made in your last sentence from the previous two. Where in DKG do you draw the evidence to support this conclusion and the subsequent indictment of Frame as a proponent of relativism?


----------



## Hamalas

This sounds like typical Frame stuff, and sadly I think it is a statement that would resonate with all too many in the PCA. We need to be praying and fighting for our denomination. There is much good in the PCA, but there are _far_ too many areas where we have fallen away from our reformed heritage. There are precious few PCA churches that could actually call themselves confessional. We _desperately_ need reform!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the outcome of his theology-as-application approach. In "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" he puts forward the belief that theological meaning is dependent on the meeting of human needs. He maintains theology can change over time and situation. Note, he does not say that the presentation of theology can be adjusted to suit the situation, but that the theology itself is relevant to the situation being addressed. Hence what might be true for one age might not be true for a succeeding age.
> 
> You have every reason to be concerned at the introduction of relativism into the theological approach.
Click to expand...


Not shocked at all. 
I agree. I think Frame is one of the weaker ministers who would like to see change to a looser position. 
Sadly he is not alone. The church needs to fight and resist this else it most likely will go the way of the other churches who did. We do not fight it because we are stuck in the mud, but because clear unprejudiced exegesis agrees with the Confession and God has preserved this for a long history in His church. 

There is no need to change. We have plenty of freedom with the Confession now. Too much freedom now if you ask me. 

His asking it as a question is a safety gimmick. He can't come out and say it is wrong. But he is clear on what he thinks. I think He is hoping to get others to shift also by raising the question, it raises doubts about the Confession rather than promoting confidence in the truth from scripture.
The confession does not address all areas of the faith and walk but only those most central areas we Confess our teachers should, must agree on to be fit to be teachers in the church. 
There is plenty of room on non-confessional issues to teach and have liberty to address the needs of the church and current cultural issues. 
One does not need ot change or question the Confession to accomplish this. 

And one is even free to take an exception so why even consider changing what one doesn't need to adhere to?

Unless they went to one all would adhere to. This would mean another split no doubt. 
I would prefer to read and study other men than Frame. 
If I was in his church I would submit to his teaching and discuss things with my elder/s.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Where in DKG do you draw the evidence to support this conclusion and the subsequent indictment of Frame as a proponent of relativism?



See pp. 302-318. Having claimed that the situational perspective is as determinative as the normative perspective, he applies Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary theory to theological progression and denies the traditional concept of progress by accumulation. He speaks of theological progress as contextualising the message, and specifically maintains "no definitive criteria for orthodoxy can be laid down once and for all. If such criteria were definitive, then they would be on a par with Scripture. Rather, criteria of this sort are always applications of Scripture to various situations; and situations change" (p. 305). He thus denies a definitive, unchanging orthodoxy in historical statements of truth, or, to use the technical term, the _norma normata_.


----------



## CDM

armourbearer said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in DKG do you draw the evidence to support this conclusion and the subsequent indictment of Frame as a proponent of relativism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See pp. 302-318. Having claimed that the situational perspective is as determinative as the normative perspective, he applies Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary theory to theological progression and denies the traditional concept of progress by accumulation. He speaks of theological progress as contextualising the message, and specifically maintains "no definitive criteria for orthodoxy can be laid down once and for all. If such criteria were definitive, then they would be on a par with Scripture. Rather, criteria of this sort are always applications of Scripture to various situations; and situations change" (p. 305). He thus denies a definitive, unchanging orthodoxy in historical statements of truth, or, to use the technical term, the _norma normata_.
Click to expand...


We really need some sort of double-thanks function especially reserved for Rev. Winzer.

I am no expert on Frame, but after his pseudo RPW book, _Worship in Spirit and Truth_, I decided there were other men I ought to spend my study time on.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Scott1

I'm not extensively familiar with this man's writings and am not sure of his exact status (e.g. church office) in his denomination.

Also, academic theologians do tend to ask provocative questions to incite discussion and debate and that may be the context of what he is doing there.

It seems he is almost questioning the very purpose of his Confession of Faith without stating specifically what points in its "infallible presentation of biblical doctrine" he disagrees with.

One might almost assume he is suggesting a new and better summary be written by him (consulting, of course "the quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection" of others). The problem is that attitude doesn't reflect the confessional nature of the theological circle he has chosen to identify himself with and that he seeks credibility in.

It would be helpful to know what "exceptions" he has been granted. General statements casting doubt on the doctrinal summary of the confession as a whole would not be appropriate for an officer who has vowed he agrees and holds it.

Sinners all have a tendency to go "off" due to pride, blindness of heart, etc. This can certainly happen to theologians.

The good news is, faith and repentance are available to all who are truly God's, even to those who would presume to represent Him through studying His Word. I hope that's not a part of his ['golden age'] Confession he disagrees with.


----------



## CharlieJ

I think that Frame is, well, correct as far as I read him. It is insufficient simply to have a confession. Baptists, Lutherans, and Reformed all have confessions. The Reformed have several confessions, admittedly very similar. If everyone just sits on his own confession, no one would ever learn or grow. I think Frame has some legitimate cause for concern that the Confession can become rigid. If it is too easy to change, it serves little purpose. If it is too hard to change, it becomes practically on par with Scripture.

I also think Frame is correct in his "golden age" comment. Thanks to men like Richard Muller, we recognize the development of a theological tradition beginning at the Reformers and developing through the 17th century. There were multiple Reformed confessions being written during this time. Why should theological development be supposed suddenly to be arrested in 1646? Have we really learned nothing from the explosion of biblical theology in the 19th century or the phenomenal increase in access to original language materials gained in the 20th century?

On another note, the PCA WCF isn't the same as the original WCF. If this is a bad thing, why aren't people campaigning to reinstate the original? If this is a good thing, why couldn't other changes be necessary, at least theoretically?


----------



## TaylorOtwell

Speaking of being confessional, I am thoroughly enjoying Dr. Clark's _Recovering the Reformed Confession_ - it may prove helpful in considering these things. He interacts with Frame's thinking in several areas.


----------



## lynnie

Thank you very much for all the interesting and helpful comments.

At some point every church needs a basic confession of faith. I know of a church where Wayne Grudem's ST essentially serves that purpose. Growing up I knew churches where the Scofield bible was their confession. Calvary Chapels have them- not only what they believe but what they reject as well. I think Chuck Smith serves as their Rutherford. I'll stay with classic Calvinism, thank you. Confessions are not canon but they are very helpful.

That quote from DKG is troubling, but thank you for it.


----------



## Hamalas

CharlieJ said:


> I think that Frame is, well, correct as far as I read him. It is insufficient simply to have a confession. Baptists, Lutherans, and Reformed all have confessions. The Reformed have several confessions, admittedly very similar. If everyone just sits on his own confession, no one would ever learn or grow. I think Frame has some legitimate cause for concern that the Confession can become rigid. If it is too easy to change, it serves little purpose. If it is too hard to change, it becomes practically on par with Scripture.
> 
> I also think Frame is correct in his "golden age" comment. Thanks to men like Richard Muller, we recognize the development of a theological tradition beginning at the Reformers and developing through the 17th century. There were multiple Reformed confessions being written during this time. Why should theological development be supposed suddenly to be arrested in 1646? Have we really learned nothing from the explosion of biblical theology in the 19th century or the phenomenal increase in access to original language materials gained in the 20th century?
> 
> On another note, the PCA WCF isn't the same as the original WCF. If this is a bad thing, why aren't people campaigning to reinstate the original? If this is a good thing, why couldn't other changes be necessary, at least theoretically?



At least part of our reaction to his statement comes from some of the specific "changes" that he would like to see in our confession. 

(And some of us _do_ object to the modified WCF.)


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

In my opinion, Dr. Frame's method of asking questions erodes, rather than bolsters, orthodoxy and confessionalism. Remember, our Confession is a summary of Biblical teaching, which does not change. We may grow, as was said earlier, by "accumulation" that is, by adding truths to truths already known, or new ways of supporting truths or ways of expression which strengthen our understanding of the Bible, but questioning the relevancy of our Confessional Standards is, if we confess that our Confessions teach Biblical truth, questioning the relevancy of the Scriptures. Are the Scriptures "settled in heaven" or are they a "living, breathing document" that shall be interpreted by the "perspective" of every age?


----------



## Josiah

TaylorOtwell said:


> Speaking of being confessional, I am thoroughly enjoying Dr. Clark's _Recovering the Reformed Confession_ - it may prove helpful in considering these things. He interacts with Frame's thinking in several areas.



 Not to get  but, I have wanted to buy the book ever since it came out. In my humble opinion this book is perhaps one of the most thought provoking books of its kind this year from everything I have heard about it. Certainly worthy of another thread on this board at another time perhaps.

Recovering the Reformed Confession


----------



## CharlieJ

TaylorOtwell said:


> Speaking of being confessional, I am thoroughly enjoying Dr. Clark's _Recovering the Reformed Confession_ - it may prove helpful in considering these things. He interacts with Frame's thinking in several areas.



I have read that and found it quite provocative. Interestingly, Clark suggested that the Reformed churches should keep writing new confessions. I am sure he is committed to the WCF, but he thinks that we ought to be a _confessing_ church, not just a confessional one. I know that a confession written by Frame would be different than one written by Clark, but I find it significant that two men with very different views on some matters both suggest that we form a new confession rather than rest on the WCF and 3FU.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I actually find the WCF to be extremely relevant.

The problem I have with the quoted portion is that it not only misrepresents the case of what the view of the Confession is but it also seems to have a pretty naive view of what modernity would fashion in its place.

The WCF is, in a nutshell, a standard exposition of Scripture. The problem that people have with the Church producing a standard exposition of Scripture is because (like the actors in Judges) everybody today prefers his/her own exposition of Scripture.

The Confessions are not infallible, per se, but insofar as the exposition of Scripture is accurate, why would we assume that the exposition would change from over four centuries?

I know his statement strikes the modernist bone in most people that read this. The assumption is that dusty old men from the 1600's shouldn't be providing a normative exposition of Scripture. Frankly, I don't care if it's from 400 years ago. I read things from Augustine that are older that are profound expositions of Scripture. I read Irenaeus in some of his writings against heretics affirming the Deity of Christ and find standard expositions of Scripture.

I wonder if people who say "Amen" to things like what were written ever see themselves in Paul's warning to Timothy that some men will have "itching ears". After all, Timothy's exposition of Scripture would be "...so 1st Century..." and were we to find some manuscript of a sermon delivered we should hope that somebody has found something "better" as time has progressed and our brains have gotten much bigger. In fact, just think about how much time we'll have to be "refining Truth" in heaven after "...we've been there 10,000 years...", we'll be continually refining our views of key doctrines which, after all, never seem to have been settled by the Scriptures.

I wonder, for you Preachers that agree with that quote (or for Frame himself), when you actually stand up to preach the Word, do you hope that people assume that what you are _expositing_ on any given Sunday morning is just your opinion of the Scriptures? When you command men to believe upon the finished work of Christ is there any settled content that you can point them to or do you tell them that the verdict is still out and they can believe today but, after all, the content of that work may be revealed to be different tomorrow based on new scholarship? Honestly, if we can so easily dismiss as Churchmen the Church's standard exposition of Scripture and hand wave it as "400 years ago" then why can't one in your Church dismiss your exposition to "repent and believe" as "30 minutes ago".

Finally, a point with respect to modernity.

I'm reminded of an opportunity I had in 2004 to have Justice Scalia lecture of the U.S. Constitution. He was remarking about how _short_ the U.S. Constitution and that, if you read it for the first time and didn't get to the Amendments, you might think that the U.S. still practiced slavery. He then commented on the fact that he had been asked to evaluate the Constitution of the European Union and its _several hundred pages_ that spelled everything out including such modern sensibilities that we be environmentally conscious and every other critical "right" that modern man can conceive.

It was a mess.

And so would be a Confession crafted in the midst of modernity.

I think the best description I ever heard of a Confession was that it is like a fence line. If you're inside the fence then you're in but if you're outside the fence line then you're out. Some fence lines are larger than others. The Apostle's Creed is a bigger fence than the Nicence which is bigger than the Chalcedon. Every time the Church confessed was to draw a line less to keep people in than to keep folks out.

Sectarianism? You ain't seen nothing until every man creates his own Confession and the fence line for orthodoxy is a dot.


----------



## Prufrock

Semper Fidelis said:


> Sectarianism? You ain't seen nothing until every man creates his own Confession and the fence line for orthodoxy is a dot.





I'm quite thankful for our confession: it is neither divisive nor sectarian; rather, it unites us and binds us together, whatever other differences within its bounds we might have with one another.


----------



## ww

After seeing John Frame's endorsement of "The Way of Righteousness" by Norman Shepherd I want to take back my cordial and gracious handling of this comment. I think there is more than there than meets the eye. In other words, it isn't just about his musical inclinations.


----------



## DonP

CharlieJ said:


> I think Frame has some legitimate cause for concern that the Confession can become rigid. If it is too easy to change, it serves little purpose. If it is too hard to change, it becomes practically on par with Scripture.
> 
> *The Confession is a summary of the basic essentials of the faith, not an exhaustive commentary on all of scripture or all doctrines.
> Are you suggesting the basic essentials of faith should change? The historic church has not even had the gospel and central doctrines necessary for ministers and church fellowship?
> *
> 
> Why should theological development be supposed suddenly to be arrested in 1646? Have we really learned nothing from the explosion of biblical theology in the 19th century or the phenomenal increase in access to original language materials gained in the 20th century?
> 
> *Well I think modern BT comes from liberal roots so I would not want to change central doctrines based on it, and it is not a systematic theology which the confession is. It is a preaching style often misused as a hermeneutic, and even if used as one part of a hermeneutic system, it would by nature not be the part to define essential doctrine.
> And if access to new original language texts would change the central doctrines of the church then we do not have closed canon. nor has God preserved His word to all His church and we may as well think like Frame and toss the Confession in preference to Charismatic revelation as the basis of our ever changing beliefs. *
> 
> 
> On another note, the PCA WCF isn't the same as the original WCF. If this is a bad thing, why aren't people campaigning to reinstate the original? If this is a good thing, why couldn't other changes be necessary, at least theoretically?



Don't show this post to your profs at GPTS


There are ministers who hold to what was changed from the majority position to the minority position in 1789 who would still through practice and education hope the understanding of the RPW in respect to psalmody would be reversed as evidenced by the fact some churches still hold to the original 1646 version. 
My take is after the revolution some were concerned about the ability to make sure the King would protect the church and whether there would now be a need for a king to assure a safe day for the GA to meet, since they could not assure he would submit to God's law and probably thought the Queen was the anti-Christ instead of the Pope. 
I would say these are pretty incidental not significant changes to the Confession as some now propose. 

But where the church has sought liberty to deviate from the Confession it has been downhill. 

Note how Union seminary was offered $240,000 in donations for new Director to be put in if they would drop the WC as a requirement for Directors, so they dropped the WC requirement. Where are they now? Why would they even want to have a director if he was not a spiritual man agreeing with the essential tenants of the faith?

UNION SEMINARY DROPS WESTMINSTER CONFESSION; Its Faculty and Directors Need Not Subscribe to It Now. $240,000 IN GIFTS FOLLOWS Constitutional Requirement Had Hampered the Institution in Its Choice of Directors.
The Directors of the Union Theological Seminary have voted unanimously to abolish the requirement that candidates for member of the Faculty or for member of the Board of Directors declare their belief in the Westminster Confession.


----------



## CDM

Mr. Frame is free to *improve* upon the Confession. Although, I doubt he and others like-minded will be providing any improvements upon the WCF anytime soon.

Seems their content resting in the peanut gallery.


----------



## DMcFadden

whitway said:


> After seeing John Frame's endorsement of "The Way of Righteousness" by Norman Shepherd I want to take back my cordial and gracious handling of this comment. I think there is more than there than meets the eye. In other words, it isn't just about his musical inclinations.



Wayne, you beat me to it! I was taken aback by the endorsement (although not entirely surprised by it). Although he parsed his words carefully, it was disappointing that he was even on the book in the company of the literati of the FV.

I stand ready to be corrected by the TR among us, but as an outsider to the camp, my mind runs to the analog of Clark Pinnock. Granted, Pinnock's theological departures may be more significant. However, beginning with a strong defense of inerrancy in 1971 and progressing to his current openness position by means of asking LOTS of provocative "questions" along the way, makes me innately suspicious of people who continually profess that they are merely "asking questions."

While we ought not stop the creative interaction of academic theologians with the text, the tradition, and our times . . . I am not prepared to give them a free pass on undermining key doctrines in the interests of "academic freedom" or "just asking questions."


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

DMcFadden said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> After seeing John Frame's endorsement of "The Way of Righteousness" by Norman Shepherd I want to take back my cordial and gracious handling of this comment. I think there is more than there than meets the eye. In other words, it isn't just about his musical inclinations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne, you beat me to it! I was taken aback by the endorsement (although not entirely surprised by it). Although he parsed his words carefully, it was disappointing that he was even on the book in the company of the literati of the FV.
> 
> I stand ready to be corrected by the TR among us, but as an outsider to the camp, my mind runs to the analog of Clark Pinnock. Granted, Pinnock's theological departures may be more significant. However, beginning with a strong defense of inerrancy in 1971 and progressing to his current openness position by means of asking LOTS of provocative "questions" along the way, makes me innately suspicious of people who continually profess that they are merely "asking questions."
> 
> While we ought not stop the creative interaction of academic theologians with the text, the tradition, and our times . . . I am not prepared to give them a free pass on undermining key doctrines in the interests of "academic freedom" or "just asking questions."
Click to expand...


Questions are good. Questions that flow from questionable hermeneutics are dangerous!


----------



## Marrow Man

I suppose those two unnecessary (I originally said "stupid" but thought better about it) chapters ("Of the Gospel" and "Of the Holy Spirit") that were "added" to the Confession were supposed to improve it as well.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Prufrock said:


> I'm quite thankful for our confession: it is neither divisive nor sectarian; rather, it unites us and binds us together, whatever other differences within its bounds we might have with one another.



Paul, you may be satisfied that the confession binds together those who agree with it and is therefore "neither divisive nor sectarian". However, that has little to do with what Dr. Frame was talking about, since he was referencing the wider Christian Church. E.g. it's not useful in this discussion to defend the confession's inclusiveness by its binding together of you and Rich. How about you and me?

As one who deplores denominationalism, I thought the page linked to in the original post had some excellent insights.

(I don't know anything about the alleged areas of unorthodoxy, and haven't read much Frame; still catching up on "golden age" theologians.)


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

armourbearer said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in DKG do you draw the evidence to support this conclusion and the subsequent indictment of Frame as a proponent of relativism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See pp. 302-318. Having claimed that the situational perspective is as determinative as the normative perspective, he applies Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary theory to theological progression and denies the traditional concept of progress by accumulation. He speaks of theological progress as contextualising the message, and specifically maintains "no definitive criteria for orthodoxy can be laid down once and for all. If such criteria were definitive, then they would be on a par with Scripture. Rather, criteria of this sort are always applications of Scripture to various situations; and situations change" (p. 305). He thus denies a definitive, unchanging orthodoxy in historical statements of truth, or, to use the technical term, the _norma normata_.
Click to expand...

Excellent! I reviewed the materials and now stand corrected.


----------



## DonP

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Excellent! I reviewed the materials and now stand corrected.



Wow a changeable man. Praise God. A good example for all of us. 

Thanks! 

What year were those chapters added to the Confession and why did they feel the need? 
Any good resource or minutes of GA you can point me to. 

Personally I like the idea of adding something on the Gospel but if they had accepted the Sum of Saving Knowledge the may not have felt a need to. 
But there has been so much controversy on the free offer and the modern decisional regeneration if this was clearly stated and refuted may have been more helpful.


----------



## Prufrock

TsonMariytho said:


> E.g. it's not useful in this discussion to defend the confession's inclusiveness by its binding together of you and Rich. How about you and me?



My apologies for being too off-topic. I simply wanted to display a token of "well-said" to something Rich said.


----------



## Marrow Man

Don, my understanding is that those chapters were originally added to the Standards of the northern Presbyterian church around the turn of the 20th century as a response to the objections of the (Arminian) Cumberland Presbyterians (read between the lines: in order to water down the Calvinism in the WCF). The southern Presbyterians adopted the chapters around 1950, and true to form, the ARP followed their big brother (the PCUS) and added the chapters about 5 years later.

Mind you, this is all from memory. The book I need that chronicles this is not with my right now. I can check at home (on the years) and update later. If someone else wants to fill in the pieces or correct my recollection, please do so.


----------



## DonP

Marrow Man said:


> Don, my understanding is that those chapters were originally added to the Standards of the northern Presbyterian church around the turn of the 20th century as a response to the objections of the (Arminian) Cumberland Presbyterians (read between the lines: in order to water down the Calvinism in the WCF). The southern Presbyterians adopted the chapters around 1950, and true to form, the ARP followed their big brother (the PCUS) and added the chapters about 5 years later.
> 
> Mind you, this is all from memory. The book I need that chronicles this is not with my right now. I can check at home (on the years) and update later. If someone else wants to fill in the pieces or correct my recollection, please do so.



No wonder they didn't make the Gospel chapter better then. 

I was thinking it was a new side old side thing but I didn't remember Cumberland pres. 
So why did ARP adopt it? And why not repeal it and go back ?


----------



## Marrow Man

Ah, just remembered that I included those alterations of the WCF elsewhere. Here is a portion of a paragraph I wrote with the appropriate data:



> The Northern branch of the Presbyterian Church added two chapters
> to the WCF in 1903, and the Southern church did likewise in 1942.
> The two chapters were entitled “Of the Holy Spirit” and “Of the
> Gospel of the Love of God and Missions,” since it was felt the WCF
> lacked “a sufficiently full doctrine of the Holy Spirit” and hampered
> men by “rigid predestination limits.” This attitude was highlighted
> by the fact that the Northern church also added in 1903 two
> declaratory statements, the first of which dealt directly with
> misgivings on the subject of predestination: “Contrary to the
> implication that Christ had died only for some, and that others were
> foreordained to damnation, the Declaratory Statement made clear
> that Christ’s sacrifice for sin was sufficient for all and offered to
> all.” The second declaration, which objected to the WCF’s
> statement that elect infants dying in infancy are saved, added that
> all infants dying in infancy are saved. In addition to these changes,
> in the 1950’s both the Northern and Southern Presbyterian Churches
> amended the WCF’s prohibition on divorce and remarriage (except in
> cases of adultery or desertion), preferring to allow greater flexibility
> in this area.



The sources for these are Office of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), _Book of Confessions: Study Edition_ (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 1996), p. 170, and Edward A. Dowey, Jr., _A Commentary on the Confession of 1967 and an Introduction to “The Book of Confessions”_ (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 230, 234.

I believe the ARP adopted the chapters around 1950. Why not repeal them? Good question (one that was actually posed on the floor of Synod a few years ago by Dr. Bill Evans). Here's the problem with this sort of thing: once the genie gets out of the bottle, it's hard to put him back in again. Once amendments, chapters, etc. are added, it's hard to get them taken out. Very hard. Very very hard.


----------



## Archlute

Had you been at the examination of Leithart's orthodoxy that was held at the Oct. 2008 meeting of our presbytery, and heard the emphasis that was placed upon Frame's view of the confessions as a way by which to completely negate the authority of our standards as a means of evaluating a minister's theology, you would (or should) have been disheartened.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

lynnie said:


> I really like Frame, always have.
> 
> Just read this:
> 
> Response to Jeremy Jones, Renewing Theology
> 
> 
> _
> 3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers. _
> 
> If the WCF was written today I believe there might be some things added like maybe creation vs evolution, and a rejection of the low self esteem victim psychology- instead of sin- behind emotional problems. But I thought we all agreed it was a real good basic summary of the main scriptural teachings. Not infallible canon, but excellent. I thought you had to take a vow to that effect to be ordained. I am puzzled by what he means about more theological reflection exactly. I'm still holding to the golden age myself.
> 
> Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.



I see no problem with Frame's questions. R. Scott Clark, an ardent defender of confessions, thinks it's time for a new Reformed confession. Writes Clark,
The relative reluctance of modern Reformed folk to confess the faith in their own words suggests a certain weakness in the post-Westminster understanding of the importance and necessity of confession.​Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,
When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, and in accordance with the additional light of Scripture which the Holy Spirit might be pleased to give the church. I believe that the time has come for us to do something along this line.​So Frame's point is valid. Of course, those who don't like some of Frame's theology will attribute an ill design to his motives. Frame may be against a kind of static confessionalism, but he's not opposed to orthodoxy or confessionalism per se.


----------



## VictorBravo

MODERATION

The thread has been edited to remove allegations of motive on the part of Frame or others. It is open for discussion on the merits, but let us refrain from discussing the inner motives (unless they are admitted) of anyone here. That is something we can't know and something that is off limits on the board.


----------



## lynnie

_Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,
When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, _

That is an interesting point. The confessions were written in a time when the church primarily seemed to battle the RCC and Arminians. I wonder if they were written today if many things would be added to address the prosperity doctrine greed, Darwin and evolution, self esteem psychobabble, Scofield dispensationalism, etc.

Nothing about God would be changed, or about salvation or righteousness or any eternal unchanging truth. But might not a modern confession have a few extras about some modern problems?


----------



## DonP

lynnie said:


> _Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,
> When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, _
> 
> That is an interesting point. The confessions were written in a time when the church primarily seemed to battle the RCC and Arminians. I wonder if they were written today if many things would be added to address the prosperity doctrine greed, Darwin and evolution, self esteem psychobabble, Scofield dispensationalism, etc.
> 
> Nothing about God would be changed, or about salvation or righteousness or any eternal unchanging truth. But might not a modern confession have a few extras about some modern problems?



Only if they confronted essential doctrines, like works salvation of Catholicism or Arminianism. 

So probably not prosperity error, but possibly FV. But I think they are extremely clear against FV already.

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 03:37:04 EST-----



victorbravo said:


> MODERATION
> 
> The thread has been edited to remove allegations of motive on the part of Frame or others. It is open for discussion on the merits, but let us refrain from discussing the inner motives (unless they are admitted) of anyone here. That is something we can't know and something that is off limits on the board.



If one speaks in a way clearly designed to bring question upon the truth, and they hold to those same deviant beliefs themselves, as evidenced in their own writing or speaking, then can't one say: 

He is asking questions because he can't say it is wrong, but he wants to cause others to doubt the credibility of the Confession and be open to change it or disregard it in practice, or show leniency with dissidents; just as the Mainstream Presbyterian church did long ago. 
?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think the best description I ever heard of a Confession was that it is like a fence line. If you're inside the fence then you're in but if you're outside the fence line then you're out. Some fence lines are larger than others. The Apostle's Creed is a bigger fence than the Nicence which is bigger than the Chalcedon. Every time the Church confessed was to draw a line less to keep people in than to keep folks out.
> 
> *Sectarianism? You ain't seen nothing until every man creates his own Confession and the fence line for orthodoxy is a dot*.





This is an excellent point, Rich.


----------



## OPC'n

I guess I should blush....but I've never heard of the guy.


----------



## Marrow Man

sjonee said:


> I guess I should blush....but I've never heard of the guy.



Blush indeed!

 I was once considering writing a thesis on Frame's view of Scripture in relation to the knowledge of God; now I feel like I've just dodged a bullet.

Or maybe like the dude wearing that bulletproof vest on thread that got yanked!


----------



## pepper

While I am not Presbyterian, but Baptist. I just have a question. If The WCF is completely orthodox, then where does the London Confession of 1689 stand? There are major differences concerning government, baptism, etc.?


----------



## KMK

pepper said:


> While I am not Presbyterian, but Baptist. I just have a question. If The WCF is completely orthodox, then where does the London Confession of 1689 stand? There are major differences concerning government, baptism, etc.?



This question is in danger of taking this thread way off course. 

I think what pepper is asking is this: If the confession can be rewritten by Baptists and remain orthodox (which the PB maintains) why can't Frame rewrite the WCF and remain orthodox?

Please do not turn this thread into a brawl over the orthodoxy of the LBC since it is accepted as orthodox here on PB.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> R. Scott Clark, an ardent defender of confessions, thinks it's time for a new Reformed confession. Writes Clark,
> The relative reluctance of modern Reformed folk to confess the faith in their own words suggests a certain weakness in the post-Westminster understanding of the importance and necessity of confession.​



"Reluctance" does not correctly describe the attitude. "Restraint" is more appropriate. Confessional folk are open to confess the faith in their own words, but the circumstances are not such that they feel this can be done with the same integrity and profitability as characterised the past. It must be remembered that the golden era of reformed confessionalism enjoyed certain conditions which are not apparent today. The two great reformed traditions -- the Scotch and the Dutch -- received the protective care of the higher powers who understood at least to some extent that they were keepers of both tables of the law. Not only is that not a reality today but the kind of people urging confessionalism disparage the very thought of it. Then there is the associated problem of unity. Because there are no civil sanctions against schism the visible church is divided into numerous sections, so that one is left wondering what a modern confession would look like. Even those sections holding to the Westminster Confession cannot agree on its interpretation and application. The Westminster Confession is often criticised because it contains too much detail and is seen as rather restrictive; to keep adding new articles of faith will only make it more restrictive and create a greater divide between those churches which maintain essentially the same commitment.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,
> When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, and in accordance with the additional light of Scripture which the Holy Spirit might be pleased to give the church. I believe that the time has come for us to do something along this line.​



Following the previous line of thought relative to unity, surely the illumination of the Spirit is such that it serves for the benefit of the whole body of Christ. It is true that heresies are to be opposed, but the reality is that confessional revision in the latter 19th and throughout the 20th century has led to the toleration of heresy and the fracture of the visible church. Can that truly be called "additional light of Scripture" which fractures the body of Christ and weakens its testimony?

Brethren, let's be sober-minded about this subject. When the visible church reforms according to the Word of God, the natural outflow will be the revitalising of her confessional stance. But the order itself is important. First there must be reformation; then, and not until then, can we hope for the revival of reformed confessionalism.


----------



## jandrusk

I'm not an expert on Frame like other have stated on this thread, but I think the fact that he's asking the question raises the following points in my mind:
1. That we should see the differences in the denominations is an ambiguous term without qualifying what differences he is talking about. 
2. As others have said he is not specific as to what specific points in the WCF he has contention with. 
3. I think his statement of focusing on all of the positives and ignoring the negatives is just opening the door to heretics to walk in and corrupt the faithful. I guess the Council Dort was not a good thing?
4. His statement of it being a good thing to be a confessional church? I could speak from recent experience on this one. I just became reformed about a little less than 2 years ago and I came from a non-denominational church that was not confessional. That was not good, because people manipulated theology as it suited them and the pastor and elders couldn't say that much to people, due to the lack of an established confession or creed. I'm now part of the OPC and the checks and balances provided by WCF keeps heretics in check and ensures everyone is on the same page.

In summary I think Frame is proposing what Machen was dismissed for; Liberalism creeping its ugly head into the reformed church and seeking to molest Christ's precious lambs.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think Michael Horton wrote a masterful article in the Sept/Oct 2008 of Modern Reformation entitle "Whose Orthodoxy: How to Define It and Why It's So Important"(Modern Reformation - Articles) You'll need to register to read it in full.



> Today, orthodoxy is often confused with a cultural and even political conservatism. This has not always been so (and still is not in other parts of the world). Frequently, America's culture wars are identified by sociologists in terms of "orthodox" versus "progressive," which is to define orthodoxy again in terms other than Christian doctrine.
> 
> Setting its sights on the plotline of God's mighty acts in history "for us and for our salvation," orthodoxy defines faithfulness by how well we not only conserve this faith but by how well we correct our faith and practice to conform to its rule. That's why orthodoxy has given rise as often to reformations as to conservations. It is a living faith-in fact, the only part of what calls itself Christianity that is actually alive. From this Archimedean point, William Wilberforce was able to stand almost alone in bringing down the British slave trade. Christian orthodoxy has no personal stake in progressivism or conservatism; its instincts are evangelical in the deepest sense: oriented to the gospel that creates and sustains the church in all times and places.
> 
> Heterodoxy is easy; orthodoxy is the challenge. Orthodoxy forces us to set sail for ever new and distant harbors, beyond the comfort of our cherished assumptions and practices. It is orthodoxy that is adventuresome, refusing to allow us to stew in our own juices. We are not allowed to reduce our horizon to the dimensions of our own experience in our own time and place but must become "catholic" creatures: opened up to the church in all times and places.



Gotta love modern Confessions that deal with contemporary issues. Want a response to the evils of Hollywood or intemperance? The Southern Baptist Convention is your solution. Not only has it confessed that we ought to boycott Disney but has confessed that Christians ought to foreswear alchohol and employment in any place that serves it. Of course, the only problem is that it has confused American conservatism and revivalism with historic orthodoxy.

One of the problems with modern "confessional" responses to modern problems is that the modern confessors suffer from the same disease of modernism. I had taken my own journey before reading Mike Horton's article but, like so many things Mike writes, he put words to something and I'm like: "Yeah, that's what I wanted to say." So many times, people get to the boundary of a Confession, want to wander beyond just to speculate and let everyone know that their might be grass on the other side of that fence. Somebody challenges them and they say: "Hey man, _SEMPER REFORMANDA_!!"

For many, Semper Reformanda means this: everything is up for grabs. We might still have to tear up the entire foundation of everything the Church stands for and start from fresh and I, even I, might be the one that's going to push the Church in that direction.

Mike reminds us that "Always Reforming" isn't about us having a revolutionary attitude when we go to Church. We are wrong to _assume_ that we are so brilliant to overthrow orthodox confession. Our attitude ought to be that Christian orthodoxy would be constantly _TRANSFORMING US_. We are the subjects that are in need of reformation constantly.

The right attitude is to approach orthodoxy in the hope that it is going to re-shape our cultural assumptions rather than allowing our cultural assumptions to re-shape orthodoxy. What bothers me about calls for new Confessions is not that people that typically call for them have demonstrated that they are temperate about the current Confessions we possess but that they're calling for them because they are inconvenient to the pastures they want to explore.


----------



## DonP

All ministers and elders should read the history of the PRes church in the US and see that every time they allow the weaker men in it goes downhill and splits result.
This is a good history as are The Presbyterian Conflict - Rian and
Fighting the Good Fight - Hart and Muether, these are excellent !!

You just can't loosen to accommodate them hoping they will get better, you wait till they do.

Things never change.

*The History Behind the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod
by George P. Hutchinson/B]
The Old School was charged with being exclusive and sectarian.61

The latter, on the other hand, opposed the existence and operation within the Church of educational and missionary societies not under any ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This oppo- sition was based on at least two practical considerations. First, the independent agency may become unsound; and second, the control of the work of the Church tends to be in the hands of a few men rather than in the hands of the Church as a whole.62 The opposition also stemmed from an appeal to distinctive Presbyterian principles. Some Old School men condemned independent agencies as, in the na- ture of the case, unpresbyterian. Others like Charles Hodge argued that, while not wrong in themselves and often helpful, such agencies are not conducive to the distinctive interests of the Presbyterian Church, which is obliged to educate her own ministers and oversee their work. ‗People may cry out against all this as high churchism, but it is Presbyterianism.‘6*


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

I think Frame has a point, but we must be careful.

Yes, I think that there is a danger in progressivism in that teachings with deep Biblical roots need to be held to strongly. However, I also think that there are things that people hold to on the basis of one interpretation of one text of scripture.

For example, there are many times when the catechisms will cite one verse in defense of what they are saying. I don't think it is inconceivable that one verse could possibly be misinterpreted. What happens if someone, upon further study, we find out that that one verse has been absolutely misinterpreted by the confession?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## DonP

Hebrew Student said:


> For example, there are many times when the catechisms will cite one verse in defense of what they are saying. I don't think it is inconceivable that one verse could possibly be misinterpreted. What happens if someone, upon further study, we find out that that one verse has been absolutely misinterpreted by the confession?
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam



When that happens let me know and we will talk about changing the Confession then.


----------



## Marrow Man

PeaceMaker said:


> Hebrew Student said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there are many times when the catechisms will cite one verse in defense of what they are saying. I don't think it is inconceivable that one verse could possibly be misinterpreted. What happens if someone, upon further study, we find out that that one verse has been absolutely misinterpreted by the confession?
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When that happens let me know and we will talk about changing the Confession then.
Click to expand...


It is my understanding that this is a mistaken notion about the purpose of proof-texts in the Westminster Standards. Originally, they were submitted without proof-texts and Parliament sent them back with that requirement. But I was enlightened as to a different use of proof-texts (different than most modern folks would assume) at the GPTS Calvin conference a month or so ago. The understanding in 16/17th century (and earlier, If I recall correctly) thought was that if a proof-text was being cited, it meant more than simply looking at that verse. The reader was being directed to consult all of what had been written in the ancient commentaries on said verse. The idea was that one needed to consult what the church had historically believed about a particular verse/passage in interpreting that verse. Calvin did this, and the Divines did this. This is decidedly different that the way we think of proof-texting today.


----------



## Spinningplates2

I go to a PCA Church that has tried to be "more contemporary" in it's worship style. We sing three "praise songs" before the worship starts. I think it hurts our Church. Others think it is the best part of the service. The crazy thing is; that people who like modern worship are never satisfied and any failure to grow and bring in the people that they though would be drawn this this style of worship is simply proof to them that we need to be MORE contemporary.

I think John Frame has done more harm to true worship then he has helped.


----------



## Knoxienne

Spinningplates2 said:


> I go to a PCA Church that has tried to be "more contemporary" in it's worship style. We sing three "praise songs" before the worship starts. I think it hurts our Church. Others think it is the best part of the service. The crazy thing is; that people who like modern worship are never satisfied and any failure to grow and bring in the people that they though would be drawn this this style of worship is simply proof to them that we need to be MORE contemporary.
> 
> I think John Frame has done more harm to true worship then he has helped.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm not sure about this and would like to see documentation; I don't know that the proofs were used that way, at least not by the regular pew sitter who memorized the WSC and its proofs. Here is a note from Hugh M. Cartwright's article "Westminster and Establishment: A Scottish Perspective" in _The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century _series, 2.208.The Westminster divines, for example, were too familiar with their Bibles and with the exegetical labours of John Calvin to ignore the context when they were required to furnish scriptural proofs.67 Cunningham held that their views "can be fully established upon scriptural authority, not indeed by express texts which assert them _in termini,_ but by fair and legitimate deduction from scriptural statements and principles.68

67. Scripture warrant for propositions under consideration was constantly discussed in Committee and Assembly. Proof texts were added to the Confession only at the insistence of Parliament, October 1646. It was suggested officially [Mitchell, _The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards,_ 368, 369] that proofs were not supplied because a while volume would be required and Reformed churches generally concurred in the biblical truth of the statements made. Unofficially, there was unwillingness to unnecessarily offend Parliament which would not enact for religious matters on the basis of divine right of Scripture [_The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie,_ Vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1842), p. 2]. Baillie suspected that the late demand for proofs was intended to delay completion of the Assembly's business. He conceded that the addition of proofs would strengthen the work. These were carefully debated and reviewed between January and April 1647 [see _Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines_.]. Confessional teaching depends on the wide sweep of Scripture and not on isolated texts. Scottish Presbyterian ordinands' unreserved owning and believing "the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith ... to be the truths of God" [e.g. _Formula, Practice of the Free Church of Scotland,_ p. 153] has thus traditionally not involved avowed commitment to each use of the proof texts any more than the Assembly intended to commit its members. Study of the proofs on the Divines' principles of interpretation gives insight into the reasoning behind their propositions and their understanding of Scripture and illustrates how firmly based in Scripture scripturally interpreted their teachings are.

68. _Principles of the Free Church,_ in _Discussions;_ 273. Cf. Gillespie, A_ Brotherly Examination_ ... (1645; Works, 6)....​


Marrow Man said:


> But I was enlightened as to a different use of proof-texts (different than most modern folks would assume) at the GPTS Calvin conference a month or so ago. The understanding in 16/17th century (and earlier, If I recall correctly) thought was that if a proof-text was being cited, it meant more than simply looking at that verse. The reader was being directed to consult all of what had been written in the ancient commentaries on said verse. The idea was that one needed to consult what the church had historically believed about a particular verse/passage in interpreting that verse. Calvin did this, and the Divines did this. This is decidedly different that the way we think of proof-texting today.


----------



## py3ak

Marrow Man said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrew Student said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there are many times when the catechisms will cite one verse in defense of what they are saying. I don't think it is inconceivable that one verse could possibly be misinterpreted. What happens if someone, upon further study, we find out that that one verse has been absolutely misinterpreted by the confession?
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When that happens let me know and we will talk about changing the Confession then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that this is a mistaken notion about the purpose of proof-texts in the Westminster Standards. Originally, they were submitted without proof-texts and Parliament sent them back with that requirement. But I was enlightened as to a different use of proof-texts (different than most modern folks would assume) at the GPTS Calvin conference a month or so ago. The understanding in 16/17th century (and earlier, If I recall correctly) thought was that if a proof-text was being cited, it meant more than simply looking at that verse. The reader was being directed to consult all of what had been written in the ancient commentaries on said verse. The idea was that one needed to consult what the church had historically believed about a particular verse/passage in interpreting that verse. Calvin did this, and the Divines did this. This is decidedly different that the way we think of proof-texting today.
Click to expand...


Carl Trueman says something very close to that in his lectures on John Owen.


----------



## DMcFadden

Ruben,

I cannot remember completely, but one of the lectures at the GPTS conference cited Trueman several times. It may have been the one being cited with reference to Reformation and Post-Reformation use of proof texts.


----------



## Marrow Man

I almost positive that the comment on the Westminster proof texts was made by David Hall during the Q&A during the first day of the conference. I could be wrong (the old gray memory ain't what she used to be...).


----------



## Archlute

The point about proof texts is moot, really, since I am not aware of any confessional Reformed denomination that makes affirming the proofs a part of their examination. I tried to submit a list of several proofs that I felt were erroneously interpreted as part of my exceptions for licensure, and was given a look like "are you kidding me?".

Hey, no one can fault me for not taking the process seriously.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I know David and will ask him. Thanks Tim.



Marrow Man said:


> I almost positive that the comment on the Westminster proof texts was made by David Hall during the Q&A during the first day of the conference. I could be wrong (the old gray memory ain't what she used to be...).


----------



## Marrow Man

I'm fairly certain it happened during Q&A, and that would have been day 1 (I didn't stay for Q&A on day 2, and they canceled it on the third day because of time). I think only David Hall spoke during that Q&A time. It wouldn't have been Carl Trueman because he did not arrive until the morning of the second day (and he was almost late for his lecture -- went to the GPTS campus instead of Woodruff Road PC!).


----------

