# Denying WCF 19



## Romans922 (Aug 3, 2015)

If one were to deny WCF 19, which specific parts of the Standards would have to be denied as well to be consistent? 

*Your answer will help me greatly, please no need to debate or make snarky comments*.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 3, 2015)

Most obviously, chapters 7 and 20 would be seriously jeopardized as well. I suspect chapters 13 and 18 on sanctification and assurance would also be affected, as an Antinomian view of the law would not be consistent with a confessional view of these doctrines. There is probably more, but I am only speaking of the top of my head.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 3, 2015)

Thanks Daniel. I'm going through right now the whole of the Standards and hoping not to miss anything.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 3, 2015)

Of course, chapter 16 on good works would also be seriously affected by a denial of WCF 19.  for missing it! In my experience, once you reject a major part of the WCF, the whole system begins to collapse.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 3, 2015)

Add Chapter 17.3, which is similar to 19.6.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 3, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> If one were to deny WCF 19, etc.



It would be helpful for me if you could be a little more specific as to exactly what aspect of Chapter 19 you are talking about. For to deny it completely would destroy the foundation of Christianity itself. Salvation would become meaningless.

1 John 3:4 “…for sin is the transgression of the law.” with, Matthew 1:21 “…and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.”


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 3, 2015)

Sure, 

Sec. 1 - denies how law is defined (moral law - ten commandments - see Sec. 2)

Sec. 2 - denies law being seen only as moral law (Sec. 3)

Sec. 3 - Denies the 3 fold division of the law - so denies Sec. 3-5

Sec. 6 - Belief that the phrase "true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works" confuses the category of covenant administration and moral obligation in a way that the NT does not. In this denies the use of the law for the Christian life (sanctification); disagrees with the removal of the 'works' principle from the Christian life.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 3, 2015)

In all honesty, a misunderstanding of the Law effects every chapter. 

I could go through the whole thing, but a denial of the Law in TOTO misunderstands Scripture (Ch.1), who God is and His character (Ch. 2), God's eternal decree proclaimed through the Law (Ch. 3), God's plan in creation and creating (Ch. 4), etc. Even if they do not deny the WHOLE Law and only aspects, these things will still be effected.


----------



## hammondjones (Aug 5, 2015)

Unless I'm not understanding, which is quite possible, it sound a denial that Man as a creation owes obedience to his Creator apart from any covenantal relationship the Creator may be pleased to enter into. If that is true, that is going to be hard to square with the presuppositions that lay beneath the surface, and certainly is going to contradict:

4.II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female,[4] with reasonable and immortal souls,[5] endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image;[6] having the law of God written in their hearts,[7] and power to fulfil it;[8] and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.[9]* Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command*, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;[10] which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.[11]

7.I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, *that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet *they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.



> The Westminster Confession provides a scriptural philosophy of the covenant relation, in which justice is done both to the sovereignty of God and to the antecedent obligation of the moral law, prior to the covenant of works.


http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/historic-calvinism-and-neo-calvinism.php


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 5, 2015)

Implications of denying WCF XIX in total. Other areas that would be affected:

VII.5
X.4
XX.1
WSC Questions 40-82
WLC 60, 91-153

This is just a minimal list. That denial has such profound hermeneutical consequences that it cannot even be remotely considered as Reformed.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 5, 2015)

Could you explain WCF 10.4 Rich???


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 5, 2015)

Speaking of false professors it notes

they never so 
diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess

This implies that we true believers do the opposite.


----------



## MW (Aug 5, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> In all honesty, a misunderstanding of the Law effects every chapter.



You hit the nail on the head there. The Westminster divines saw the moral law as natural. It is based on the fact that God has absolute dominion over all things and His right over creation is supreme. Any theology which denies the moral law is simply unnatural. The system of theology in the Standards is stated so as to conserve the claims of the law while magnifying the grace of the gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 6, 2015)

MW said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > In all honesty, a misunderstanding of the Law effects every chapter.
> ...



I agree with you. I was trying to skim through the Confessions and Catechisms to find the obvious spots. I even skipped over every use of the word "lawful" (which a denial of WCF 19 would make that impossible).

Denying the nature of the moral law is like denying oxygen and asking what parts of the body are affected if one simply denies its existence. Unfortunately, the nature of theological dialog with even some Churchmen is such that unless something is obviously stated then they won't buy that it affects another area. My focus in my answer was to provide some places where it would be easy for even the lazy to see how that denial affects the system of doctrine in such a way that it requires that you cut out whole swaths of the Standards and proves what is the case - namely, that the moral law permeates the DNA of the Standards.

Just to relate some frustration in the theological examination process, a man was presented to held to paedocommunion and he took maybe two exceptions to the Standards (the obvious places that just spoke about who could participate). What he (and sadly many ministers and elders) could not see is how the conviction over practice belied a more fundamental issue of how the Standards viewed the Sacrament and worthy recipients. The Lord's Supper is either helpful to the young and ignorant or it is harmful but it cannot be both. Well, my attempts to move that the man take approximately 15 obvious exceptions to the Standards failed because there are many who take a facile "as long as he doesn't teach or practice it then I don't have a problem with it" attitude. Thus, I suppose my list of exceptions for Andrew was aimed at "hand holding" because it is sadly necessary these days (not for Andrew but for a sadly sizeable number of the ambivalent).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 6, 2015)

Rich, I think a similar argument can be made that the recent proposed changes to the PCA standards* for the fourth commandment (excising whole day and recreations from the texts) are not simply snips to allow those that like their Sundays like their Saturdays with a worship service or two thrown in. It is a logical denial that the fourth commandment is as perfect and extensive as the other nine. And, as has gone the PCA on the fourth commandment, it clearly is going the same direction regarding paedocommunion. It is awfully hard to argue with the PC's "not fair" argument that the antiSabbatarian gets to have his exception and teach it and put it in practice, when it is just as weighty an exception as paedocommunion. Of course, the PCA won't compensate by becoming more Sabbatarian; they'll allow the practice and teaching of PC eventually. We already have the wink, wink, nudge, nudge practice of allowing very young children to the table who can't or don't even stay attentive for the preaching of the Word.

*the changes didn't pass, not because the PCA is Sabbatarian, but because the exception is freely allowed and changing the standards deemed unnecessary.


----------



## MW (Aug 6, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Denying the nature of the moral law is like denying oxygen and asking what parts of the body are affected if one simply denies its existence.



I like that illustration, probably because when I was very young I was quite surprised to learn that someone had discovered oxygen in the 1700s, and wondered what everyone breathed before then.  Science isn't going to change reality; it only attempts to describe what is.


----------

