# PCA and the Original WCF



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2006)

Does the PCA allow for officers who hold to the original WCF? or must they hold to the American revision?

The reason that i ask is the original WCF seems to be more theonomic than the American revised version of the WCF.

For example, Chapter 23 section 3 speaks of civil magistrates ensuring that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 23, 2006)

The original WCF is anti-theonomic (see Rushdoony's _Institutes_ and the Free Church of Scotland's 1997 statement on Theonomy):



> "The General Assembly declare that the teachings commonly known as Theonomy or Reconstructionism contradict our subordinate standard, the Confession of Faith, and are inconsistent with our supreme standard, the Bible, particularly on the question of the expiry of the judicial laws."


----------



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2006)

Then how could they say that the civil magistrates must ensure that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed.

That sounds theonomic to me.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 23, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Then how could they say that the civil magistrates must ensure that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed.
> 
> That sounds theonomic to me.



I think the reply will be that the Original WCF language is theocratic, not theonomic. Now I will leave it to Andrew to explain the difference.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 23, 2006)

Pilgrim said:


> I think the reply will be that the Original WCF language is theocratic, not theonomic. Now I will leave it to Andrew to explain the difference.



 Precisely. Theonomic and theocratic are two different things. This thread and this may be useful.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2006)

Thank you Andrew, but those posts are quite long. I started reading them, but never came to the difference between theonomic and theocratic. Can someone please sum up the difference for me. This may be the the crux of the whole situation for me.

I would think that theocratic is when the Church rules society and theonomic is when the standards from the OT are considered applicable to modern society.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 23, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Thank you Andrew, but those posts are quite long. I started reading them, but never came to the difference between theonomic and theocratic. Can someone please sum up the difference for me. This may be the the crux of the whole situation for me.


 
Well I'm no expert on the subject, but I think that I believe the theocratic understanding of government myself. From what I know, the theocratic (Westminsterian) system believes that the O.T. civil laws are abolished, while the government is still under obligation to uphold both tables of the moral law. Theonomy believes that the O.T. punishments are still to be enforced, while the theocratic would lump O.T. punishments into the civil law. Theonomy (at least some...as far as I know) has a hard time with the three-fold distinction of the law (civil, moral, ceremonial) and thus differs from the traditional reformed view.

I'm open to correction, but this is my understanding.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2006)

Interesting stuff from Dr. Greg Bahnsen found here...



> This positive attitude toward the standards of God's law, moreover, pervades the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Even those with strong reservations about the theonomic perspective in ethics have recognized its advocacy within the Westminster Standards. A rehearsal of my personal confession of faith along with the view of the Westminster Confession of Faith can thus serve to introduce and summarize the position of theonomic ethics.





> According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, He does not dissolve it in any way in the Gospel but rather "much strengthens this obligation" (SIS.5). Reformed theologians have always held such a conviction.



Here is another interesting article
Theonomic Ethics and the Westminster Confession
This article states that the PCA allows for the adherence to theonomy, which basically answers my original question if that's true.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 23, 2006)

I believe the answer to your question on the PCA is yes. As to the rest, Sinclair Ferguson is more correct in saying there is some practical agreement between Theonomy and the views of some of the Westminster Divines. There has been some Theonomic over reaction (the whole 'Assembly of Theonomists' take on Westminster); just as there has been some rather odd over reaction on the side of those opposed to Theonomy; e.g. a minor example, the rejection of George Gillespie authorship of _Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty_. 

NB. Interestingly, the article by Bahnsen Larry links to above predates his discovery of Gillespie's _Wholesome Severity, _and does not depend upon it. i.e. denying authorship doesn't really accomplish anything for the debate.



larryjf said:


> Does the PCA allow for officers who hold to the original WCF? or must they hold to the American revision?
> 
> The reason that i ask is the original WCF seems to be more theonomic than the American revised version of the WCF.
> 
> For example, Chapter 23 section 3 speaks of civil magistrates ensuring that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 23, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Well I'm no expert on the subject, but I think that I believe the theocratic understanding of government myself. From what I know, the theocratic (Westminsterian) system believes that the O.T. civil laws are abolished, while the government is still under obligation to uphold both tables of the moral law. Theonomy believes that the O.T. punishments are still to be enforced, while the theocratic would lump O.T. punishments into the civil law. Theonomy (at least some...as far as I know) has a hard time with the three-fold distinction of the law (civil, moral, ceremonial) and thus differs from the traditional reformed view.
> 
> I'm open to correction, but this is my understanding.



Yes, Jeff has summed up the distinction between theocracy and theonomy very nicely. Sorry if my earlier responses have not been fully clear. Theonomy says that the law of God should be divided into two primary categories -- moral and ceremonial, with the judicial laws of Moses being a subset of the moral law, and thus, still binding today, contrary to the 1647 confession's statement that the judicial laws have expired. Within the ranks of theonomists, you will find those who attempt to argue that theonomy is consistent with the 1647 confession and that some members of the Westminster Assembly were theonomists. I disagree strongly with those assertions and that point has been argued extensively on the board in the past. 

I would add that theocracy is simply the recognition that Christ is Lord over nations and civil magistrates as well as the church, and therefore should rule in accordance with his law, contrary to the pluralist / secular position which says that magistrates should not in any way attempt to enforce the whole Decalogue. That is quite different from saying the church rules society (ie., Erastianism). The historic Presbyterian view of the relationship between church and state is one of alliance between the 'ministers of God' (magistracy and the church) (cf. Rom 13.4) with each respecting the sphere sovereignty of the other, but working towards the same end, ie., to glorify God according to their callings. 

To get back to your original question, the PCA does allow for theonomy, but I don't know if it allows an office-bearer to say "I take exception to the PCA confession at 23.3 and I personally adhere to the 1647 confession at this point." An exception in favor of theonomy is not the same thing as an exception in favor of the 1647 confession. Probably so, because the PCA allows a wide lee-way when it comes to exceptions to its confession, but usually the exceptions have a liberal / modernist tilt to them (ie., recreation on the Lord's Day, etc.). I was a member in the PCA, not an office-bearer, and I held to the 1647 confession at the time. But I was not a theonomist.

There is overlap between theocrats and theonomists in that both desire to see recognition of God and his law codified in the state. In that sense together we oppose the secularists inside and outside the church. We disagree in the nature of the law to be codified, that is, the former argues that only the moral law of God is still binding (WCF 19.4-5) and the latter argues that the judicial law of God is still binding as well as the moral. 

In the Presbyterian Reformed Church, one of a tiny handful of churches in the US that adheres to the original confession, some well known leaders have argued strongly in the past against theonomy as being inconsistent with the confession, and argued that the circumstantial case for identifying the anonymous treatise called _Wholesome Severity_ as the work of George Gillespie has not been proved and contradicts his other writings (but allowing him authorship does not prove that theonomy per se is consistent with the Westminster Confession), and yet argued just as strongly that theocracy and the establishment principle represent the teaching of the original confession.

William Cunningham, _The Westminster Confession on the Relation Between Church and State_

See also, William Young, _The Westminster Confession on the Relation Between Church and State_


----------



## larryjf (Nov 23, 2006)

Thank you guys so much.
This has been very helpful to me.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 23, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Thank you guys so much.
> This has been very helpful to me.



You're welcome, Larry.  

I'll add what I think is a helpful theocratic comment from William Gouge, member of the Westminster Assembly and "father of the London divines," on Heb. 7.12:



> Sec. 68. Of the abrogation of the ceremonial law.
> ...
> The Jews were under a threefold law, moral, ceremonial, and judicial.
> ...
> ...



Also, David Dickson, author of the first commentary on the Westminster Confession:



> Did the Lord by Moses give to the Jews as a Body Politick sundry judicial lawes, which expired together with their State?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 23, 2006)

See also, Ligon Duncan, _The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Theonomic Document?_



> C. The Meaning of the Confession: Five Assertions which show it is non-theonomic
> 
> Whatever the claims of our Reconstructionist brethren, we are convinced that it can be conclusively demonstrated that the WCF does not support the peculiarities of the theonomic thesis. The WCF is clear and precise on the issue, and a careful reading of the relevant passages will expose the idiosyncratic reinterpretation which the Reconstructionists have imposed on the text in question.
> 
> ...



and Bob Vincent on Theonomy.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 23, 2006)

This has been discussed _ad nauseum_ before, but on Gillespie authorship of _Wholesome Severity,_ see . Also, the final version of my paper of some 17,000 words on this topic forms the preface to _WS_ in the Naphtali Press free PDF of _The Anonymous Writings of George Gillespie_ [no longer offered]. Email me or join the NP newsgroup to get the password to open the PDF. Included in the paper is a first time translation of the portion Gillespie cites out of Junius (quote below): _Franciscus Junius on Possible Changes in the Common Law of Moses._To conclude therefore this point, though other judicial or forensical laws concerning the punishments of sins against the moral law may, yea, must be allowed of in Christian Republics and Kingdoms; provided always, they are not contrary or contradictory to God’s own judicial laws; yet I fear not to hold with Junius, _De Politiæ Mosis,_*26 *that he who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now. And so much for the first argument from the Law of God. ["Wholesome Severity," in _The Anonymous Writings of George Gillespie_ (Naphtali Press, 2001) 74.]​---------------​*26.* [Franciscus Junius (1545-1602) _De Politae Mosis Observatione_ (Leyden, 1593). Also, _Francisci Ivnii Bitvrigis, Sacrarvm Literarvm in Academia heidelbergensi et LvGdvno-Batava Professoris Ervditissimi, Opera Theologica… _(Genevae, 1607) _De Politia Mosis, ilbellus,_ cap. vi, 1517-1520.]​


----------

