# WCF Vs Blind WCF Following



## Reformed Covenanter

Does anyone ever get the impression when talking to people in the Reformed community that they almost treat the WCF as infallible? Often one hears such-and-such a view condemned because it is 'un-confessional'. However, does not the WCF itself forbid this attitude? From my reading of the WCF it allows for the Confession to be revised in light of Scripture. It says:

All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, *may err*; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both. (31:4) This surely most include the Westminster Assembly itself.

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;so as, *in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them*. (1:8) Therefore condemning a position because it is un-confessional is itself un-confessional.

*The supreme judge* by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but *the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture* (1:10). The supreme judge is not the WCF, to condemn something merely because it contradicts the WCF is therefore against the WCF.

In light of this, should positions like Theonomy and not believing in a Papal anti-Christ, merely be condemned because they contradict the WCF (I do not believe Theonomy does contradict the WCF, but that is besides the point)?


----------



## wsw201

For those who subscribe to the Westminster Standards, which are usually officers in a confessional Presbyterian Church (PCUSA excluded), are saying that what the Standards say is what the Scriptures teach on a particular subject, be it the Laws of God the status of the Pope, Justification or Scripture itself. As you have noted, the Standards are not Scripture but that does not mean that the Church can't rely on them as a faithful interpretation of Scripture. In fact that's one of the reasons why we have them so everyone within the church can be on the same page. 

Otherwise everyone would have their own personal opinion. The Church could not say whether tht opinion is right or wrong resulting in each person being their own little denomination.

The Scriptures are the Supreme judge and if one believes that the Standards do properly reflect what Scripture teaches then there shouldn't be a problem using the Standards. If one does not believe that the Standards are true to Scripture then you should not subscribe to them or make every attempt to change them. And the Standards have been changed since 1647.


----------



## JohnV

I agree, Wayne. One must be careful not to use that reasoning to undermine the unity that the Confessions represent, using their inferiority to Scripture as a ground to individualize them to each person's interpretation. They are the Church's credo as a whole, and as such also for each member.

Our church asks each member to confess, to continue in, and to submit to the "true and complete doctrine of salvation" which is found in the Old and New Testaments, summarized in the Confessions, and taught here in this Christian church. 

Things like Theonomy or particular millennial views are not taught there, but may be held as personal views within that boundary. As such they should never be confused with confessed doctrine.


----------



## RamistThomist

And there is also the issue, not quite as serious but still annoying, when someone brings a new, tough ethical issue to the floor and is responded to by 200 pages, _copy and paste_, from various confessions.


----------



## RamistThomist

But I am not bashing the WCF. I remember one time at seminary I quoted the Confession and WLC on the law of God--but I didn't say what I quoted-- and a student responded "Nuh-uh, theonomy is false!"


----------



## Contra_Mundum

When we appeal to the Standards (as previously stated) we are using pre-approved "shorthand". We are stating: "This point really isn't up for a variety of interpretations, unless we need to take the conversation BACK another step, and call the Constitution (of our denomination) into question at that point." And frankly, that's an incredibly serious step to take.

Can you imagine, today, if we all the sudden had to fight the Arian question again? (not the modern JWs, who are not INSIDE our churches today) Seriously, the word TRINITY is not in the Bible--so, is the question about Jesus' divine identity up for debate whenever it's questioned? Is it deficient to say, "That question is settled for Christians, and if you do question it you also need to question your claim to be 'Christian', until it is answered"? I think that's not deficient.

Because the Arians wanted to be called "Christians" too. But in the end, they lost that right. The disciples of Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch. And while the Arian dispute was ongoing, all sides were claiming the name "Christian." The Arians came to be called Arians after losing the name Christian.

Many times, a person may be ignorant concerning the "official" position of their church. We are prone to be quick affirmers of whatever interpretation of the Bible comes into our little heads, without ever consulting the collective mind of the church. So, it might be an eye openner to tell someone "the church has already thought long and hard about that." They may want to go back and see the arguments they never knew about.

Sometimes the argument goes: "The Confession isn't clear, or the Confession is open to other interpretations at that point." The first option is mostly a smoke screen, because generally if it was important enough to write down, then the framers were already clear. The second option usually contains the idea that the words were written to accommodate divergent views. Even if this was a true interpretation (debatable), the fact is that the same formula set the LIMITS of Confessional agreement, not the MINIMUM needed to find agreement. The Confession is written to define truth, so as to exclude errors. It is not a "wax nose".

Its much simpler for someone to just own that he differs from the Confession at this or that point. For some reason (usually because they are worried about sanctions, formal or informal) people tend to gloss over their deviations, desiring to be accepted without any qualifications. Thus, dishonesty flourishes. It may have been GaryNorth who most recently pointed out (Crossed Fingers) that dishonesty in one area of Confessional subscription, crippled the church in imposing sanctions when liberals used the same arguments to create room for themselves.

Doctrinally, those Standards define who we are, and within our internal discourse, they may certainly be appealed to, because on them we have already defined our "common ground understanding." If that's not understood, so much the worse for the argument.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I like the way you put that Bruce (as usual).

I'm always interested to hear stories of people that tightly subscribe to the Confession in a supposed "slavish" sense - the man who knows the WCF but not the Scriptures. I've honestly never met one yet although my experience of a thing does not make it so.

I _have_ met a lot of men who make this kind of argument when the WCF is stepping on their toes to define a doctrine that is in contradiction to the Confession.

You failed to mention, Daniel, that while the Confession does not claim infallibility it still doesn't say: "...and therefore we urge each and every man to decide what Scripture teaches for themselves...."

It still remains to synods and councils to reform the Confessions. This is not on Biblical but it's obvious.

Let me ask you a question Daniel? Where is the Confession wrong in how it confesses the interpretation of the Scriptures and by what authority am I to accept your interpretation of the Scriptures?

Let's say that your issue is Theonomy. We've both studied the Word and I agree with the WCF framers but you agree with Bahnsen. Who's right? Are we both right? Are we permitted to go our own way and start our own Churches - on one corner the "OPC of Theonomy" and the "OPC that doesn't teach Theonomy". By the way, that's not a joke - that's something that happens in real life.

Dr. R. Scott Clark is absolutely correct: Every heretic claims to use Scripture. What role does the Church have to Confess a doctrine? _That_ is the question not enough muse over. To many the WCF is confessed by them because they have _personally_ granted it that authority. The moment they study the Word on their own and come to a differing conclusion, they are willing to lop off portions, add portions, or in the case of the Federal Vision, completely misrepresent what the WCF teaches.

Thus, for me, I take a lot of stock in the statement: this view is un-Confessional. It's another way of saying: the Reformed Church throughout history has interpreted the Scriptures this way, I agree with them, and I think you should not be so hasty to think that the sun rises and sets on your understanding of the Scriptures. Take care that you stand lest you fall.


----------



## tcalbrecht

I think one of the problems you see today with the handling of the confessions is the attempt to micro-manage what the church believes and teaches.

E.g, the confessions are very good at defining true biblical Christianity vs. Romanism or Arianism or Arminianism. When people press the confessions in order to slice and dice theology at a micro level, they get into a lot more trouble and end up "de-confessionalizing" otherwise solidly reformed brethren.

I think the confessions were written to permit as many men to subscribe them in good faith within the broadest categories of reformed traditions (as opposed to Lutheran or Roman Catholic or Anabaptist). Modern churchmen sometimes have gone too far in their zeal to explain the “true meaning” of the confessional language, and in doing so twist the real meaning from the confessions.

It reminds me of the scene in _Annie Hall _when Alvy and Annie are standing in line at the movie theater listening to this man – a teacher of a class in _TV, Media and Culture _-- going on and on about media, invoking Marshall McLuhan. Alvy wishes that in this type of situation you could appeal to the source, and pulls McLuhan out of the wings, who proceeds to respond to the man's pontificating with the line, "I heard what you were saying. You, you know nothing of my work. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing".

To which Alvy replies, “Boy, if life were only like this.”

Professional theologians strike me just that way at times.


----------



## RamistThomist

Let's also keep in mind that Bahnsen taught a course on the Confession and gave many arguemtns in defense of its use in the guiding the church. you can aqcuire those at CMF. And in Bahnsen's message, "Law and Disgrace" (arguably the finest piece of rhetoric on the internet) he bemoaned the defection from the WCF. 

I just don't want people to pit Bahnsen vs. the Confession.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Rich

Bahnsen (like myself) claimed to agree with the WCF framers (that only the 'general equity' or justice of the judicial law remains binding), though it should be kept in mind that there was not 100% agreement among the Westminster Divines on the civil law.

My point is that when an issue is brought to the floor of a church court, the person is to be condemned only after an honest exegetical study of Scripture, not the WCF, otherwise we violate Sola Scriptura. This is not to be disrespectful to the WCF, but to be like the Bereans and to test everything by Scripture - which is what the Westminster Divines would want us to do. If something in the WCF is found to be unbiblical it should be revised; however, this does not mean that we abandon the whole Confession, instead we modify it to bring it into closer conformity to Scripture. This, surely, is what the church of the Scottish Second Reformation did when they dropped the Scots Confession in favour of the WCF. If they could make an improvement, after studying the word of God, then why can't we. This is not a call for ecclesiastical anarchy, but for the Reformed Church to seriously re-consider some issues (such as a belief in Papal Antichrist - I think it is hard to defend the dogmatic way in which the WCF asserts this). If we don't allow for revision, then what difference is their between ourselves and the Steelites, who condemn anyone (in fact, wont have fellowship with anyone) who does not agree with EVERYTHING that the 2nd Reformation Church agreed to (including the historicist interpretation of Revelation). 

Tom

I think your comments are excellent; the Westminster Divines were not a monolithic body, and there would seem to be certain statements in the Confession which accommodate a variety of views (eg the 'general equity' clause WCF 19:4).

Everyone else

Thanks for your input brethren.


----------



## wsw201

Tom,

I'm not quite sure what you are saying (I never saw Annie Hall. I thought Woody Allen's earlier stuff was funnier) but I don't think the Divines were attempting to write the Standards in such a way that it could be interpreted any way a person might want to and be considered Reformed. Armyaldians were at the Assembly but I don't think we would consider them within the bounds.

I think one of the problems we have today is that the Standards are being turned into a wax nose. As Presbyterians, we do not subscribe to the "Reformed Traditions", whatever that means, but the the Westminster Standards. We also don't subscribe to our favorite Reformed Guru, which is a very popular thing to do these days. Calvin, Hodge, Murray and Edwards are great teachers and were right about a lot of things but were not right about everything. They are not the Church. Plus the fact that Joe Puritan was at the Assembly and believed X and the Standards say Y does not mean that X is within the "Bounds". As I recall, only the Church of Scotland required subscription to the Standards. I am not sure if any officer in the Church of England actually had to subscribe, especially when the King came back into power. Actually having to subscribe is where the rubber meets the road regardless of intent.

In my humble opinion, we should start by taking the Standards at face value, ie; the Divines wrote down exactly what they meant! I don't think we have to go through various "hermaneutical" gymnastics to understand the Standards.


----------



## wsw201

Daniel,

The WCF version that the OPC and PCA subscribe to addressed the Papal-AntiChrist issue.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Oh yes, I should add that I do not condone a man swearing to a confession of faith if he does not agree with everything in it. The reason why I would not accept office at the present time is because of a scruple over WCF 25:6 - especially when it says that the Pope of Rome is 'in the church' (surely Rome is a synagogue of Satan and not a true church of Jesus Christ).

Furthermore, what happens if a man swears to the WCF in good conscience, but then, years later, discovers something he is not sure about. Does he ignore it? Or does he ask his church to investigate the matter further?


----------



## SemperWife

*????????*



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Oh yes, I should add that I do not condone a man swearing to a confession of faith if he does not agree with everything in it. The reason why I would not accept office at the present time is because of a scruple over WCF 25:6 - especially when it says that the Pope of Rome is 'in the church' (surely Rome is a synagogue of Satan and not a true church of Jesus Christ).



Where does the WCF say that the "Pope is 'in the church?'" I looked up 25:6 and found no such statement. Are you understanding "catholic church" to mean "Roman Catholic Church?" If so, that is not the case.

Please forgive me if made a wrong assumption here. I just can't see in the whole of WCF 25 any reference to the pope or the Roman Catholic Church (minus the indirect reference to all churches that can be"synagogues of satan" in 10,11).

Here is a copy of the WCF. Perhaps you can help me to see what you are referring to regarding the pope..



> Chapter XXV
> Of the Church
> I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]
> 
> II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]
> 
> III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]
> 
> IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]
> 
> V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Sonya

WCF 25:6 (in the original) reads:

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, *in the Church*, against Christ and all that is called God.

I hope this is of some help.


----------



## MW

I hope it is evident to all that there is also such a thing as "Scripture Vs Blind Scripture Following."

As for the Antichrist being in the church, it is self-evident. Mr. Ritchie, you have made a mistake by equating "church" with "true church."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Mr Winzer

Could you please show me where the WCF makes that distinction in the text concerning the papacy? In fact it says that 'there is no other head of the (true) church but the Lord Jesus Christ' but then goes on to say that the pope 'exalts himself, in the church' - which would appear to indicate that the same church is being talked about.

The only church is the true church; Rome is not a church but a synagogue of Satan. Here, I believe, the language of the WCF is not as careful as it should be.

However, most arguments that I have heard in favour of the papal antichrist view, have argued that the reference to the man of sin exalting himself in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2) refers to the pope exalting himself in the church. I must reject this interpretation because if the temple of God is the church (which, in that context, I don't believe it is), then it cannot refer to the papacy, as the pope is not in the church.


----------



## tcalbrecht

armourbearer said:


> I hope it is evident to all that there is also such a thing as "Scripture Vs Blind Scripture Following."
> 
> As for the Antichrist being in the church, it is self-evident. Mr. Ritchie, you have made a mistake by equating "church" with "true church."



Mr. Winzer,

Since the confession never uses the word "church" except to indicate a "true church", yours seems like an interpretation of the confession. Perhaps that is an acceptable position, although I'm doubtful:




> There is no other head of *the Church* but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in *the Church* against Christ, and all that is called God.



Are we to understand that the original confession is equivocating on the meaning of "the church" in a single paragraph?

If it is acceptable, then my earlier comment is validated to a degree.


----------



## MW

Mr. Ritchie, as Presbyterians we recognise the word "church" can be used in various ways and must be understood according to context. The church in which the Pope sits is the professing church. It is clear this is what the WCF means from the fact that the statement concerning the antichrist follows immediately after section 5, which speaks of churches under heaven being subject to mixture and error. Every professing church must be judged according to the nature of its teaching. On the basis of what it teaches we are able to discern whether its profession is true or false. So we speak generally of the professing church and specifically of true or false churches. Those who claim to be the church but speak falsely are not non-churches but false-churches.

Concerning the interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 -- it would be naive to suppose that this passage is undisputed amongst sound commentators. For myself, it suffices that the apostle speaks of "opposing counsel" as sitting in the "temple." Whether we understand the Pope as the fulfilment or an application of what the apostle foretells, is irrelevant. What matters is that the WCF provides a sound biblical principle wherewith to evaluate the claims of the Pope to be the head of the church. We should avoid understanding the Confession as providing a prophetic interpretation. 25:6 is a proposition relative to ecclesiology, not eschatology. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Rich
> 
> Bahnsen (like myself) claimed to agree with the WCF framers (that only the 'general equity' or justice of the judicial law remains binding), though it should be kept in mind that there was not 100% agreement among the Westminster Divines on the civil law.
> 
> My point is that when an issue is brought to the floor of a church court, the person is to be condemned only after an honest exegetical study of Scripture, not the WCF, otherwise we violate Sola Scriptura. This is not to be disrespectful to the WCF, but to be like the Bereans and to test everything by Scripture - which is what the Westminster Divines would want us to do. If something in the WCF is found to be unbiblical it should be revised; however, this does not mean that we abandon the whole Confession, instead we modify it to bring it into closer conformity to Scripture. This, surely, is what the church of the Scottish Second Reformation did when they dropped the Scots Confession in favour of the WCF. If they could make an improvement, after studying the word of God, then why can't we. This is not a call for ecclesiastical anarchy, but for the Reformed Church to seriously re-consider some issues (such as a belief in Papal Antichrist - I think it is hard to defend the dogmatic way in which the WCF asserts this). If we don't allow for revision, then what difference is their between ourselves and the Steelites, who condemn anyone (in fact, wont have fellowship with anyone) who does not agree with EVERYTHING that the 2nd Reformation Church agreed to (including the historicist interpretation of Revelation).
> 
> Tom
> 
> I think your comments are excellent; the Westminster Divines were not a monolithic body, and there would seem to be certain statements in the Confession which accommodate a variety of views (eg the 'general equity' clause WCF 19:4).
> 
> Everyone else
> 
> Thanks for your input brethren.



Daniel,

Did you completely miss the part where I said that the Confessions can be reformed? The point is that we each don't have the role to reform it ourselves. Is your argument that each man gets to decide where the WCF is authoratative and where it is not? The Church has an authoratative (yet fallible) role in Confessing the Word. From the Pastor who declares the Word of God to the Church that Confesses the doctrines of Scripture, we are not all on the same plane of authority with respect to the truth of the Scriptures. The Church is not infallible but it still has the role in settling controversies unless you wish to announce you do not subscribe to the WCF at that point.

I use this example regularly. If a man is caught in the act of adultery, it simply does not do for him to say: "Well, that's _your_ interpretation of the Scripture because you're blindly bound to a tradition. My interpretation is that sleeping with lots of women is perfectly fine."

With some ideas about Confessionalism that I see here, the effective answer of the Session would have to be: "Ah, well, we cannot bind your conscience then because you're convinced in your mind that the Scriptures teach this is OK."

As for Bahnsen, it was an example. Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that a theonomic view of the Scriptures is not doctrine according to the WCF. One of the great things about the WCF is that it *does* bound the things that ministers should be able to bind the consciences of men with. If theonomy is not in the WCF then, frankly, it can be given as an opinion of an individual minister but it is not the doctrine of the Church. Some men seem to forget this. They go to Seminary, glom on to a framework hypothesis, or a redemptive historical approach, or a theonomic perspective and then they define their new congregations by pet doctrines that are not found in the WCF.

Now, properly speaking, are they allowed to hold to those views? In some cases, yes. The question is: Is it proper for them to be making new types of Presbyterians within the Presbyterian Church? I've met more than a few new "Reformed" people who have scarcely studied the WCF but are already saying how much they are into theonomy.

This is not a Bahnsen bashing exercise but, for those who like him, just remember what we're talking about here. It's not that the doctrine is outside the bounds of what we can believe and still be Confessional but some are importing their opinions of the text and then saying to those unconvinced, this is now a doctrine of _this_ Church. Those otherwise convicted either have their consciences now bound or are forced to go to another congregation. In at least one case some have been brought under Church discipline for not submitting to such views.

I don't care if it's a strong BT or Theonomic perspective, until the Church has Confessed it as doctrine just remember what the ministers have sworn to uphold and teach as CONFESSED by the Church.

In the end, this is all about liberty of Conscience. If I have to worry about every guy that rolls into a new Presbyterian Church and wonder: "Well, what does the WCF mean to you?" that is just a crazy recipe for unity.

Finally, why is it not permissible for the Federal Vision to be un-Confessional on certain points of doctrine while it is OK for us to be for our pet doctrine? Do you suppose some of them probably ask that question? I imagine some of them found it to be the height of hypocrisy for many of the men that raised their hands at Presbytery that they know give lip service to the Confession except when it suits their needs to keep the doctrine out that they don't want.

I find it fascinating how so many "conservatives" will talk about the Federalist Papers and the framer's intent for the Constitution but, when it comes to the WCF, well that's a different story. On the one hand they want Pagans to be faithful to the vows on the U.S. Constitution while they lead the way in being unfaithful to the vows on a Constitution for Christ's Church!


----------



## RamistThomist

> I find it fascinating how so many "conservatives" will talk about the Federalist Papers and the framer's intent for the Constitution but, when it comes to the WCF, well that's a different story. On the one hand they want Pagans to be faithful to the vows on the U.S. Constitution while they lead the way in being unfaithful to the vows on a Constitution for Christ's Church!



That's a good point. I know a few historians who have written books to that affect: Marsden and Hart (although Hart pushes an agenda in his books which mars some of the good points he makes). Reverend Paul Jehle made a good point: If the majority of evangelical/reformed pastors were elected to Congress, we would move furhter to the left overnight.


----------



## bookslover

I think what Daniel was getting at in his original post is the _attitude_ some people hold toward the secondary standards. I've had people tell me that the confession and catechisms "not only can't be changed, they can't even ever be questioned". This, of course, is to have way, way, way too high a reverence for these merely man-made documents. I know of at least one instance where a man was proudly displaying a Bible which he had re-bound to include a copy of the standards in the back. This kind of thinking makes me nervous. 

I know that officially we all consider the Bible to be the ultimate standard of authority, which it is. But, too often, I find Reformed Christians have gotten into the habit of appealing to the secondary standards _first_ instead of going to the Scriptures. At a _practical_ level, this tends to put the secondary standards in a place, even unconsciously on the part of the one doing it, slightly higher than the Scriptures, by the mere fact of their being the reference of first resort instead of the Bible.

We need to keep in mind that something is theologically or practically correct primarily because the _Bible_ says so.

The secondary standards are good summaries of the Bible's doctrine. They aren't any less than that - but they aren't any more than that, either.

Remember, Isaiah 8:20 *doesn't* read _To the Westminster Confession of Faith and to the Directory for the Public Worship of God..._.


----------



## MW

tcalbrecht said:


> Are we to understand that the original confession is equivocating on the meaning of "the church" in a single paragraph?
> 
> If it is acceptable, then my earlier comment is validated to a degree.



I think the equivocation is one which is generally understood in theological parlance. Pick up any standard work on the church and the first thing one finds is a discussion of the semantics of the word ekklesia.

There are, no doubt, places where the Confession is deliberately ambiguous. On those places subscribers have liberty to understand the Confession as they think correct. E.g., the question of the magistrate calling synods: the 1647 approving act takes the liberty to understand it of the kirk unsettled. But where there is no ambiguity, but the original intent of the divines is clearcut, the church is bound either to accept or modify the statement. They can modify it either in terms of a Declaratory Act altering the terms of subscription to that particular point in the Confession, or they can alter the wording of the Confession itself. The first procedure gives liberty for subscribers to still maintain the original intent of the Confession, whilst the second method really binds the subscriber to maintain that the original form of the Confession was in error.

With regard to the relative authority of the confession, it must be understood that this is a confession of FAITH. In other words, it is what the church believes the Word of God teaches. It is thus, ipso facto, regarded as maintaining the infallible truth of Scripture. If it is in error, the church is bound to alter it to reflect its understanding of Scripture; but the alteration will then be regarded as the infallible teaching of Scripture, for it is what the church confesses the Word of God binds man to believe concerning God. If it is not what the Word of God teaches then the church should not maintain this as her confession of the faith.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Rich

My argument is not that each man gets to decide for himself, but that a denomination has the right to amend the Confession to bring it into closer conformity to Scripture. Although individual people should not be condemned _merely_ for believing something contrary to the WCF (Baptists etc).

I would agree that Theonomy is not explicitly taught in the WCF, but to say that it precludes a Theonomic understanding is going too far (though, from what I can gather, you are not saying this) for a number of reasons:

1) Many of the Westminster Divines held a similar view of the penal sanctions to Bahnsen et al. See Martin Foulner's book _Theonomy and the Westminster Confession_ for a large number of quotations from the Puritans on civil ethics. Or read James Jordan's article _Calvinism and the Judicial Law of Moses_.

2) Other men - like Donald Cargill and John Cotton - would have been banned from holding to the Westminster Standards if this was right.

3) Chapter 20 of the WCF does not teach that the judicial law of Moses has been set aside, as the ceremonial law has.

However, people who are not convinced of Theonomy should not be accused of violating the WCF, as the WCF is (probably deliberately) ambiguous.

As for the Federal Vision, I think there is a vast difference between a matter as serious as this one, and a belief in papal antichrist. One of the most disappointing things about the PCA report was that they did not refute it from Scripture. I watched a video of the proceedings and many men in the general assembly, some of whom were very opposed to FV, made the point that the FV needed to be proved wrong from Scripture and that the method adopted by the PCA (of condemning something because it was unconfessional) was itself against the WCF.

However, I repeat that swearing to something with crossed fingers is not an option.

Richard

That is exactly the point I was making, thank you. It is the fact people condemn something simply because it contradicts (or they think it contradicts) a human document that annoys me.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Daniel Richie writes:



> Bahnsen (like myself) claimed to agree with the WCF framers (that only the 'general equity' or justice of the judicial law remains binding), though it should be kept in mind that there was not 100% agreement among the Westminster Divines on the civil law.


Bahnsen's interpretation here is incorrect.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Peter

> Fifthly, it is said we give up too much to the papists if we admit Romanists to be in the church. To this we answer, Every false position is a weak position. The cause of truth. The cause of truth suffers in no way more than from identifying it with error, which is always done when its friends advocate it on false principles. When one says, we favor intemperance, unless we say that the use of intoxicating liquors is sinful; another, that we favor slavery, unless we say slaveholding is a sin; and a third, that we favor popery unless we say the church of Rome is no church, they all, as it seems to us, make the same mistake, and greatly injure the cause in which they are engaged. They dive the adversary an advantage over them, and they fail to enlist the strength of their own side. Men who are anxious to promote temperance, cannot join societies which avow principles which they believe to be untrue; and men who believe popery to be the greatest modern enemy of the gospel, cannot co-operate in measures of opposition to that growing evil, which are founded on the denial of what appear to be important scriptural principles. It is a great mistake to suppose popery is aided by admitting what truth it does include. What gives it its power, what constitutes its peculiarly dangerous character, is that it is not pure infidelity; it is not the entire rejection of the gospel, but truth surrounded with enticing and destructive error. Poison by itself is not so seductive, and therefore not so dangerous, as when mixed with food. We do not believe that those of our brethren from whom we are so unfortunate as to differ on this subject, have a deeper impression than we have either of the destructive character of the errors of popery, or of the danger to which religion and liberty are exposed from its progress. We believe it to be by far the most dangerous forms of delusion and error that has ever arisen in the Christian world, and all the more dangerous from its having arisen and established itself in the church, or temple of God.



Charles Hodge, Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church

My understanding is that the Reformers believed the Church of Rome is a true church and a false church. True with respect to the elect in her and the evangelical doctrines she teaches; the Trinity, Jesus Christ as mediator, salvation by grace, etc. False with respect to her Popery, superstition, idolatry, and semi-pelagianism. All the Magisterial and Post-Reformers, as far as I know, recognized that at her foundation Rome is a True Christian Church, but in her superstructure she is rotten and in desperate need of repair. She's a house unfit and dangerous to live in but a house nonetheless and better to be in than out in the cold.


----------



## raderag

wsw201 said:


> I think one of the problems we have today is that the Standards are being turned into a wax nose. As Presbyterians, we do not subscribe to the "Reformed Traditions", whatever that means, but the the Westminster Standards. We also don't subscribe to our favorite Reformed Guru, which is a very popular thing to do these days. Calvin, Hodge, Murray and Edwards are great teachers and were right about a lot of things but were not right about everything. They are not the Church. Plus the fact that Joe Puritan was at the Assembly and believed X and the Standards say Y does not mean that X is within the "Bounds". As I recall, only the Church of Scotland required subscription to the Standards. I am not sure if any officer in the Church of England actually had to subscribe, especially when the King came back into power. Actually having to subscribe is where the rubber meets the road regardless of intent.



That is a really great point, and one I try to make to some of the FV sympathizers. The only change I would make to your formulation is that Y is 'X (not X). Many try to say that Y is just a "different formulation" than X.


----------



## RamistThomist

Say it ain't so


----------



## Civbert

Daniel Ritchie said:


> ... One of the most disappointing things about the PCA report was that they did not refute it from Scripture. I watched a video of the proceedings and many men in the general assembly, some of whom were very opposed to FV, made the point that the FV needed to be proved wrong from Scripture and that the method adopted by the PCA (of condemning something because it was unconfessional) was itself against the WCF.....



Proving the FV wrong from the WCF is (by implication) proving it wrong from Scripture. If the FV is right according to Scripture, then this means the WCF is wrong. So by going to Scripture first, this is an indirect attack of the WCF. 

The proper order of appeal should be to go to the WCF first. If it disagrees with the WCF, then one must show that the WCF is not Scriptural. If the WCF is silent on the matter, then one should appeal to Scripture - and if it is not contrary to Scripture, then it is a matter of liberty. If it agrees with the WCF, then it is (by implication) Scriptural according to the WCF. 

The WCF clarifies and summarizes the teachings of Scripture. Therefor, it is the first place we should look to to answers any matter. If it disagrees, we can say it is not scriptural. The fact that the WCF is of secondary authority does not imply it is the second place to appeal to on a matter. 

That being said, it is a matter of personal duty for us all to study the WCF and settle in our own minds (be fully convinced) that it is a correct understanding of Scripture. If your church has set the WCF as a standard of what is scriptural, then if your are to stay in that church you need to be sure you agree with the WCF. A church has no authority to tell you what to believe, but it can tell you that if you don't believe what the church confesses, you may not be in that church. An appeal to Scripture is no good if what you believe the Bible says disagrees with what the church has said is scriptural in it's confession of faith. (Notice I did not use a capital 'c'. That's because I not saying the the "Church" has presented the WCF as Scripture. It may be true, but it's not the point I want to make.)


----------



## wsw201

> My argument is not that each man gets to decide for himself, but that a denomination has the right to amend the Confession to bring it into closer conformity to Scripture.



Argument made and has been agreed to by everyone. As I have noted, the issue of the Pope was dealt with with a change to the Standards. So the Standards can be and have been altered to better conform to Scripture. Is it that your church has not or is not willing to follow the American version?



> I would agree that Theonomy is not explicitly taught in the WCF, but to say that it precludes a Theonomic understanding is going too far (though, from what I can gather, you are not saying this) for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1) Many of the Westminster Divines held a similar view of the penal sanctions to Bahnsen et al. See Martin Foulner's book Theonomy and the Westminster Confession for a large number of quotations from the Puritans on civil ethics. Or read James Jordan's article Calvinism and the Judicial Law of Moses.
> 
> 2) Other men - like Donald Cargill and John Cotton - would have been banned from holding to the Westminster Standards if this was right.
> 
> 3) Chapter 20 of the WCF does not teach that the judicial law of Moses has been set aside, as the ceremonial law has.
> 
> However, people who are not convinced of Theonomy should not be accused of violating the WCF, as the WCF is (probably deliberately) ambiguous.



Unfortunately this argument just doesn't hold water. As I have previously noted, officers of the church do not subscribe to the theology of their favorite theologian or a particular person who attended the Assembly. BTW, were Mr. Cargill or Cotton required to subscribe to the Standards? If not then your point is moot.

I would be very interested to know what Presbyterian denomination states in their subscription vows for officers of the church that they can deviate from the plain reading of the Standards as long as they can find at least one person at the Assembly who held a different view. Do you know of any?


----------



## wsw201

raderag said:


> That is a really great point, and one I try to make to some of the FV sympathizers. The only change I would make to your formulation is that Y is 'X (not X). Many try to say that Y is just a "different formulation" than X.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Peter

I think there is a difference between the Reformers before Trent, who would have seen the RCC as a true church, but a scandalously corrupt church. However, after Trent Rome anathematized the gospel - making it a synagogue of Satan.

Wayne

I know what you mean, but John Cotton and Donald Cargill were never censured for not agreeing with the WCF, whereas the Amyraldians and Erastians (present at the Assembly) find their views condemned in the standards. As Cargill was a Covenanter minister, he must have sworn to the WCF, and so when he called for the Covenanted nation of Scotland to be governed by the judicial law, he must not (in his own mind at least) have been doing something contrary to the Standards (otherwise his enemies would have picked up on this).

Anthony

While I sympathize with what you are saying, surely some exegesis would have helped the PCA report and stopped the mouths of FVers.

Everyone else

I think it is important to remember that none of us are capable of an entirely objective view of history; those of us with Theonomic leanings will interept WCF 19:4 and quotes from the Reformers and Puritans in accordance with our Theonomic presuppositions. Those who take a different view will undoubtedly view WCF 19:4 and historical quotations in a different light. Both sides may sincerely be trying to be honest, but their views are already tainted by their Theonomic or non-Theonomic presuppositions. However, this discussion was not meant to be about Theonomy (we could debate that for years) I just mentioned it as an example.


----------



## tcalbrecht

wsw201 said:


> I would be very interested to know what Presbyterian denomination states in their subscription vows for officers of the church that they can deviate from the plain reading of the Standards as long as they can find at least one person at the Assembly who held a different view. Do you know of any?



The short-sightedness here is that ministers of the Word are just that, ministers of the Word, not ministers of the confession. It is impossible for a minister of the Word to proclaim the whole council of God if they limit themselves to the explicit subject of the confessions.



> The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:



Please note the origin of the whole council of God. It is not the confession.

If would be stunted congregation indeed whose pastor limited himself to merely preaching the confessions. A pastor should be free to declare anything that has not been expressly condemned by his presbytery.

Now, obviously a pastor needs to be sensitive in the way he treats subjects that are not explicit in the confession, e.g., the millennial question. But to suggest he must avoid Revelation 20 or preach in such a fashion as to suggest the truth of the passage cannot be known is contrary to his calling. Likewise on the application of God’s law to modern society or the nature of the covenant.

I believe it is a misuse of the confessions to attempt to bind a pastor in such a way, and betrays a fundamental mistrust of these men.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Tom,

I honestly don't know who you're implying would state that a minister of the Gospel is not allowed to preach the whole counsel of God's Word. I also agree (and have agreed) that the Confession doesn't include all information contained in the Word. Nobody has argued that he can only exegete on the passages of Scripture that the Confession touches upon.

Where the Church has confessed, though, don't you believe it is a ministerial duty to say: "I disagree with the Church at this point based upon my personal study of the Scriptures."

Also, suppose he has a personal conviction on a doctrine that the WCF is silent about. He certainly may preach on the text but does he now have the authority to represent the teaching as doctrine. If someone differs from him on this point in conscience may he bring that person up on charges as violating their oaths of membership?

You seem to keep implying that bounding certain doctrines means that ministers must be silent on all doctrines. Can you point to a statement made here where this is even inferred?

It's rather like arguing that if I say that a man may not teach contrary to Chalcedon that he's not allowed to teach about anything other than the nature of Christ.


----------



## RamistThomist

SemperFideles said:


> Tom,
> 
> I honestly don't know who you're implying would state that a minister of the Gospel is not allowed to preach the whole counsel of God's Word. I also agree (and have agreed) that the Confession doesn't include all information contained in the Word. Nobody has argued that he can only exegete on the passages of Scripture that the Confession touches upon.
> 
> Where the Church has confessed, though, don't you believe it is a ministerial duty to say: "I disagree with the Church at this point based upon my personal study of the Scriptures."
> 
> Also, suppose he has a personal conviction on a doctrine that the WCF is silent about. He certainly may preach on the text but does he now have the authority to represent the teaching as doctrine. If someone differs from him on this point in conscience may he bring that person up on charges as violating their oaths of membership?
> 
> You seem to keep implying that bounding certain doctrines means that ministers must be silent on all doctrines. Can you point to a statement made here where this is even inferred?



What I think he means--and I am taking a guess--is that there have been some posters here on the board, for instance, have argued that a pastor shouldn't preach on a millennial view since the Confession doesn't spell it out. However, Revelation 20 is part of the "whole counsel of God," which would not forbid it being preached. 

I think that might be what he is getting at.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well, if I was interpreted that way then that was not my intent. What I would disagree with, though, is that the Pastor preach and say: "This is _the Church's_ interpretation of these passages.

I also think that to preach on a millenial view so much or to make it the focus of a Church would then be in a position where it would become more doctrinally important in the Church's life. I've seen Churches define themselves as being theonomic or people who want to find a Pastor who preaches that way (or even those that insist that the Pastor should _always_ preach Redemptive Historically).

Then we're no longer Presbyterians but we're theonomic Presbyterians or redemptive historical Presbyterians or we're Presbyterians who practice paedocommunion or ....


----------



## RamistThomist

All of that being said, I have never heard a pastor, whether he be a theonomic or wannabe southern presbyterian, or dutchy ever preach on the millennium. I think it is a hobgoblin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

You surely are not oblivious to my point whether or not a Pastor preaches on a-millenialism or post-millenialism proper.

One can uncarefully make their millenial view so controlling in their preaching that, intended or not, the congregation becomes defined by it. _That_ is not a hobgoblin. I can name names of Pastors and Churches in the SoCal Presbytery of the OPC that were defined more by the millenial views of their Pastors than any other doctrine (both post and a mil).


----------



## tcalbrecht

SemperFideles said:


> Tom,
> 
> I honestly don't know who you're implying would state that a minister of the Gospel is not allowed to preach the whole counsel of God's Word. I also agree (and have agreed) that the Confession doesn't include all information contained in the Word. Nobody has argued that he can only exegete on the passages of Scripture that the Confession touches upon.
> 
> Where the Church has confessed, though, don't you believe it is a ministerial duty to say: "I disagree with the Church at this point based upon my personal study of the Scriptures."



I think that is what I said.

However, I think what I was reacting to are statement like this:



SemperFideles said:


> We've both studied the Word and I agree with the WCF framers but you agree with Bahnsen. Who's right?



Dr. Bahnsen was a member in good standing of the OPC. To the best of my knowledge neither the presbytery to which he was subject nor the broader OPC has ever said that Dr. Bahnsen’s views were not in accordance with what the WCF framer wrote in chapter 19. In other words,, Dr. Bahnsen confessed WCF 19 and he was never challenged in that confession save in the court of public opinion.

So the question, “who’s right” can only logically be answered “both” based on what we know. I think the PCA is in a similar state wrt theonomy.

Add to that the fact that other conservative Presbyterian denominations are either explicitly or implicitly theonomy-friendly. 

I agree that it would be wrong for a person to demand that another hold to theonomic views, or anti-theonomic views for that matter.

It would equally wrong for a minister to refrain from preaching on God’s law along the lines of Dr. Bahnsen simply because some folks don’t think it is in agreement with the WCF framers.

Again, you said:



SemperFideles said:


> Thus, for me, I take a lot of stock in the statement: this view is un-Confessional.



Be careful not to confuse un-confessional with a-confessional.


----------



## RamistThomist

SemperFideles said:


> You surely are not oblivious to my point whether or not a Pastor preaches on a-millenialism or post-millenialism proper.
> 
> One can uncarefully make their millenial view so controlling in their preaching that, intended or not, the congregation becomes defined by it. _That_ is not a hobgoblin. I can name names of Pastors and Churches in the SoCal Presbytery of the OPC that were defined more by the millenial views of their Pastors than any other doctrine (both post and a mil).



I didn't mean to say "hobgoblin." I was thinking about something else, but lost my train of thought. I should have edited it.


----------



## tcalbrecht

SemperFideles said:


> Then we're no longer Presbyterians but we're *theonomic Presbyterians* or redemptive historical Presbyterians or we're Presbyterians who practice paedocommunion or ....



Has not the GA of the PCA declared that all Westminster-confessing presbyterians are theonomic presbyterians?



> (a) That since the term "theonomy" in its simplest definition means "God's Law", the General Assembly affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19, and Larger Catechism, Question 93-150, as a broad but adequate definition of theonomy. (7th General Assembly, 1979, 7-49, III, 22, p. 115)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Tom,

My point about Bahnsen was illustrative. I don't think he was completely un-Confessional but, unlike you, I don't agree it has not been demonstrated that his views on theonomy comported with WCF 19 in how they were framed. I have read Calvin and some of the framers on that and they did not share Bahnsen's views. In other words, it would be disingenuous to say that the WCF framers were theonomists while it is not disingenuous to say that Bahnsen was.

I'm not a big fan of people who try to read an old document and say: "Well that sounds just like what I'm saying...." The framers ought to be allowed to speak for themselves because that is what the Church confessed and has not yet Reformed. We're no different that those that make the WCF a wax nose if we treat it like a living document that now bends to our new understanding. We ought to amend the WCF if a point of doctrine we're holding conflicts with the WCF. Otherwise, at some point we become like the PCUSA who still claims to confess the WCF but it says nothing the way it used to.

I simply do not agree that theonomy is a teaching that you can present full-orbed and not run afoul of how the WCF framers understood what they were writing in WCF 19. Now is not the time to fully debate that point. Assuming that this is the case, however, my statement about "agreeing with the WCF" stands.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tcalbrecht said:


> Has not the GA of the PCA declared that all Westminster-confessing presbyterians are theonomic presbyterians?



Only if one wishes to be pugnacious and disingenuous in the manner in which I was making the argument.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Rich 

I would agree that a full-orbed theonomic view does _go beyond_ the WCF, but this is not the same as saying it is unconfession per se (or, if you prefer, anti-confessional). The same could be said of presuppositionalism and post-millennialism; while I think the Westminster Standards contain elements of these doctrines, I would not argue that one needs to be post-millennial or a Van Tillian to subscribe to the WCF.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It's a fine point Daniel that I don't really want to get into here. I think some theonomists re-define what the general equity of the Law is, and by doing so, are un-Confessional in how they view what the general equity is.

I will grant, however, that theonomic views are not viewed as un-Confessional by the Churches where ministers serve in good standing and I have no right to state otherwise.

I do have a problem, as I've said repetedly, when those points of opinion begin to take over a Church. Then a minister's view of general equity may end up binding the conscience of a man in a way the Confession does not.


----------



## RamistThomist

Concerning general equity, I wonder if Frame's situational perspective is an angle on general equity?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Rich, 

Perhaps then we need a better example than theonomy. Or perhaps it is a good example because since the church has not spoken against views held by Bahnsen et al they are admitedly not un-confessional. I think they are a-confessional. The millennial issue is the same. Although one would be hard pressed to find premillennialism among the WCF writers, and certainly the WCF has a decidedly optimistic a-/post-millennial flavor, yet no-one is calling historic premillennialists non-confessional, are they? Certainly the millennial issue (not to mention the creation days issue) is a wax nose if ever there was one.

The issue is whether there really is a conflict or not. My earlier contention is that there was latitude within the assembly to permit a many men as possible to subscribe in good faith. 

You have your personal views on theonomy, and I respect them. But let's not kid ourselves that the church has un-confessed Dr. Bahnsen and Co.


----------



## Peter

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Peter
> 
> I think there is a difference between the Reformers before Trent, who would have seen the RCC as a true church, but a scandalously corrupt church. However, after Trent Rome anathematized the gospel - making it a synagogue of Satan.



But I don't think there is a difference in the views of the Reformers before and after Trent (1545-1563). Calvin lived one year after the the last session of the council and the last edition of his Institutes came out right in the middle of it (1559) yet I don't know of Calvin changing his views on Rome as church or the related question of Romish baptism. Turretin wrote well after the council yet believed the Church of Rome was Christian. The Westminster Divines, as you said, at least believed in some sense the CoR was Christian.


----------



## Pilgrim

Peter said:


> But I don't think there is a difference in the views of the Reformers before and after Trent (1545-1563). Calvin lived one year after the the last secession of the council and the last edition of his Institutes came out right in the middle of it (1559) yet I don't know of Calvin changing his views on Rome as church or the related question of Romish baptism. Turretin wrote well after the council yet believed the Church of Rome was Christian. The Westminster Divines, as you said, at least believed in some sense the CoR was Christian.



To my admittedly limited knowledge, no Reformer saw RC baptism as invalid after Trent and no Reformed synod or GA declared it such until 1845. I am relying mainly on Dr. F.N. Lee and Dr. Rowland Ward for this understanding. It seems to me that those who say RC baptism is invalid and point to Trent (despite the fact that the Reformers themselves did not) do so because they don't want to have to say that the Reformers were in their view wrong on this point. Is it unreasonable to suggest that this is an illustration of the concerns raised in the OP?


----------



## RamistThomist

If John Knox ministered in our churches, would he have to take an exception to the confession on the law of God?

Knox writes:


> And therefore I fear not to affirm that it had been the duty of the nobility, judges, rulers and people of England not only to have resistance and againstanded Mary, that Jezebel whom they call their queen, b*ut also to have punished her to the death*, with all the sort of her *idolatrous *priests, together will all such as should have assisted her what time that she and they openly began to suppress Christ's Evangel.


~Oliver and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, From _Irenaeus to Grotius_, p. 692.

The sections from Knox were taken from _The Appellation of John Knox from the cruel and most unjust sentence pronounced against him by the false bishops and clergy of Scotland to teh nobility and estates of Scotland_

The obvious inference that one draws from this is that Knox believed in a theocracy and not only should the magistrate uphold the Christian religion, but that the magistrate is to be put to death if he/she suppresses it.


----------



## Pilgrim

Draught Horse said:


> If John Knox ministered in our churches, would he have to take an exception to the confession on the law of God?



If you have in mind the American version of the confession adopted by the OPC and PCA that rejects the Establishment Principle the answer would certainly be yes, as it would be for Gillespie, Rutherford, etc. 

Let's keep in mind that when we say "the confession", that most if not all of those outside of North America subscribe to the original, and that if we are not clear, there will be misunderstandings as we have seen already in this thread.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tcalbrecht said:


> Rich,
> 
> Perhaps then we need a better example than theonomy. Or perhaps it is a good example because since the church has not spoken against views held by Bahnsen et al they are admitedly not un-confessional. I think they are a-confessional. The millennial issue is the same. Although one would be hard pressed to find premillennialism among the WCF writers, and certainly the WCF has a decidedly optimistic a-/post-millennial flavor, yet no-one is calling historic premillennialists non-confessional, are they? Certainly the millennial issue (not to mention the creation days issue) is a wax nose if ever there was one.
> 
> The issue is whether there really is a conflict or not. My earlier contention is that there was latitude within the assembly to permit a many men as possible to subscribe in good faith.
> 
> You have your personal views on theonomy, and I respect them. But let's not kid ourselves that the church has un-confessed Dr. Bahnsen and Co.



I think it's as good an example as any because we're all bound to have our sacred cows gored every now and again by a Confession and the question is what we do about it.

I have used the example of the Federal Vision and Redemptive Historical excess in my illustrations as well.

I don't necessarily agree that everything Bahnsen was very passionate about re:Theonomy was merely a-Confessional. It doesn't mean we ought to get out the pitch forks but I do wish that all of us would be careful to recognize it within ourselves when it happens. I don't think I'm any better than Bahnsen by the way. I'm not trying to stand in judgment of him.

He, nevertheless, remains a good example because he was, on the great whole, orthodox. It's very easy for us to not see any of the excesses of the Federal Vision proponents because they're un-Confessional on very key doctrines so we don't feel our kinship to them in the way they treat the Confession.

I frankly don't think we need any practice disregarding the Church's testimony where it steps on our toes. If Bahnsen taught a bit too stridently in a direction that the WCF would disagree with regarding the nature of general equity then let us acknowledge that, though the man was a great man, he did err occasionally in not clarifying that this was his view of the Scriptures and not the Church's understanding of the thing. Maybe he's right and a Council needs to decide that point eventually but, either way, it helps to keep those things clear rather than completely muddle them because we like Bahnsen or Knox or any host of other people.

I love Bahnsen's works on a number of things. I just got finished listening to his history of Western Philosophy. He was a treasure to the OPC in his lifetime. I started listening to Frame's Intro to Apologetics today and he made a good point about how much he appreciated Van Til but still read him with a critcal eye.

The point in the end is that any doctrine, even if it is a-Confessional, has to be treated with care. Ministers ought to be aware of the fact when something around the fenceline is taking them in a direction where they are now disagreeing with the Church even if they didn't start out that way. At that point, they ought to be respectful of everybody in their congregation who they know has sworn an oath to the Church but not to their opinions on a doctrine. If men would merely be more clear on where they are opining in some disagreement with the Confession then there would be a lot less rancor. 

At some point, however, the WCF framers cannot agree with all the ways in which general equity is couched by various specialized schools of thought. Also, the ethical demands and time-consuming nature that theonomy spends on the nature of general equity distracts from the other doctrines.

If we can't learn something about being Confessional when it's challenging our convictions but only when it is challenging the "bad guys" then it doesn't seem like we're really too committed to a common confession. That's not a direct criticism, Tom, but a general observation.


----------



## Peter

Pilgrim said:


> To my admittedly limited knowledge, no Reformer saw RC baptism as invalid after Trent and no Reformed synod or GA declared it such until 1845. I am relying mainly on Dr. F.N. Lee and Dr. Rowland Ward for this understanding. It seems to me that those who say RC baptism is invalid and point to Trent (despite the fact that the Reformers themselves did not) do so because they don't want to have to say that the Reformers were in their view wrong on this point. Is it unreasonable to suggest that this is an illustration of the concerns raised in the OP?



Exactly.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> To my admittedly limited knowledge, no Reformer saw RC baptism as invalid after Trent and no Reformed synod or GA declared it such until 1845. I am relying mainly on Dr. F.N. Lee and Dr. Rowland Ward for this understanding. It seems to me that those who say RC baptism is invalid and point to Trent (despite the fact that the Reformers themselves did not) do so because they don't want to have to say that the Reformers were in their view wrong on this point. Is it unreasonable to suggest that this is an illustration of the concerns raised in the OP?



I was just reflecting on this a bit more after Peter's response. It is a good illustration of the point.

I do like what Rev. Winzer wrote earlier about the way the Confession ought to be reformed and then how we ought to treat the Confession once it has been reformed.

I think one reaction to your observations, Chris, could be to throw up our hands and say, like Pilate, What is Truth?!

I mean, if the we're supposed to submit to the American revision of the WCF that even Gillespie wouldn't agree with then what are we supposed to believe?!

The problem is resolved by realizing that our goal here is the unity of the Faith. Dead Saints are useful polemic foils but when it's our Church in our time we need to remember that we're striving for a Biblical command here and the Church still has a role and the Confession serves part of that role.

Otherwise, we can do like some have done and pull beliefs from Saints of old like a Schmorgesborg. When challenged on their Confessional view they'll say: "But by challenging this, you're damning Augustine...!" It's supposed to be the trump card then because somebody at some point believed it, he was a Saint, now we should be permitted to spread that doctrine even if the Church confesses differently, and to say otherwise is to consign the man who believed it to hell.

I think we need to take a different look at it. In the end, we'll all find there was some error in our theology. But isn't it clear to us all that the Church has some role in Confessing? I would rather hold my peace than contribute to schism. Even if I can get Calvin, Rutherford, and Gillespie on my side, it _might_ still be a great evil to disturb the Church's unity.


----------



## bookslover

Civbert said:


> The proper order of appeal should be to go to the WCF first. If it disagrees with the WCF, then one must show that the WCF is not Scriptural. If the WCF is silent on the matter, then one should appeal to Scripture - and if it is not contrary to Scripture, then it is a matter of liberty. If it agrees with the WCF, then it is (by implication) Scriptural according to the WCF.
> 
> The WCF clarifies and summarizes the teachings of Scripture. Therefor, it is the first place we should look to to answers any matter. If it disagrees, we can say it is not scriptural. The fact that the WCF is of secondary authority does not imply it is the second place to appeal to on a matter.



This is to put the cart before the horse, and is a good illustration of just the kind of attitude that got this thread started in the first place. The first and last court of appeal is always the Scriptures.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I do like what Rev. Winzer wrote earlier about the way the Confession ought to be reformed and then how we ought to treat the Confession once it has been reformed.



Just a quick note of clarification in accord with my ordination vows that the Confession is the confession of my faith -- I never stated the Confession *ought* to be reformed. To me it is reformed, a faithful representation of Scripture teaching. I stated that where the Confession is not received as representing the teaching of Scripture the church has the power to make a declaratory statement or alter it, and that this would be better than giving a false confession. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Just a quick note of clarification in accord with my ordination vows that the Confession is the confession of my faith -- I never stated the Confession *ought* to be reformed. To me it is reformed, a faithful representation of Scripture teaching. I stated that where the Confession is not received as representing the teaching of Scripture the church has the power to make a declaratory statement or alter it, and that this would be better than giving a false confession. Blessings!



If you spoke proper American English I think you might understand me. 

Seriously, I didn't mean to imply that you meant that is _should_ be reformed but that you stated that, should it be reformed that it _ought_ to be done in a certain way.

In other words, the "oughtness" wasn't over the idea that there's great expectation that it will have to be reformed. Rather, the "oughtness" in my post was over the insistence that it must be done correctly if it ever is.

That's another good point. I think we sometimes display a great suspicion or even an embarassment over the WCF. Yeah, it's our Confession but, at any second, we're going to need to reform it because something wrong is going to be found in it. It's our Confessional document but, don't you know, it's secondary, it's fallible. It might fail us so stand clear lest it blow up in your face.

I think we ought to have the utmost confidence in the Confessions of our Reformed Churches. Unfortunately, I can probably find more American Presbyterians that have more confidence in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution than the WCF.

Whenever a theological issue comes up on this board that I'm fairly confident about, I typically still go to the Reformed Confessions (WCF and 3FU) because I have the utmost confidence in their exegesis and understanding of these doctrines. They also contain where the writers went in the Scriptures (in part) to form these concepts.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> If you spoke proper American English I think you might understand me.



You might be onto something here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CH,

I specifically kept my point vague about theonomy in order to avoid getting into a specific debate about Theonomy here. I'm content to allow those convinced it is un-Confessional or Confessional to argue broadly but I don't want to get into it too much. I know I started some of the conversation but it was merely illustrative to get us all to think along the lines of Confessionalism.

If people want to continue the debate in detail then it will need to be in another thread.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> But I don't think there is a difference in the views of the Reformers before and after Trent (1545-1563). Calvin lived one year after the the last secession of the council and the last edition of his Institutes came out right in the middle of it (1559) yet I don't know of Calvin changing his views on Rome as church or the related question of Romish baptism. Turretin wrote well after the council yet believed the Church of Rome was Christian. The Westminster Divines, as you said, at least believed in some sense the CoR was Christian.





Peter

I agree with your conclusion about what the Reformers thought; I agree with them about Rome before Trent, but disagree with them after Trent.

This is one place where I am quite happy to admit that I am un-confessional, indeed even anti-confessional, however, this is because I believe the WCF to be unbiblical at this point. Rome is a synagogue of Satan - which has anathematized the gospel of Jesus Christ - therefore it should not be considered a true church.

Others

I only raised the issue of Theonomy to illustrate a point, it was not meant to start a whole debate on the issue. Surely there are other threads in which this has been done in the past.


----------



## JohnV

I would not put my trust in a man to teach me about trees and shrubs if he couldn't tell the difference between them. Neither would I put my trust in a man to teach me about Bible doctrine and men's opinions if he could not tell the difference between them. 

There are three views of the millennium, of which none violate the WCF. And anyone who holds to one or the other is not being unconfessional by doing so. He is free to do so, and no one should question that man's integrity. But if he teaches any one of them as Bible doctrine, then that shows that he doesn't know what Bible doctrine is. Obviously he is confused, not only about Bible doctrine but also about his own office. 

The "whole counsel of God" cannot include all three millennial views. Yet all three are ruled as not violating the rule of faith. 

Where the matter becomes "unconfessional" is where a minister takes it upon himself to include into the "whole counsel of God" what is not authorized by God. God has not authorized any one view on the millennium. He has not revealed that to us. There are pros and cons to all three, but that's not because the Word is contradictory; it's because of our limited understanding and because some vital information is not given to us. 

When a minister begins to preach from the pulpit as if he has the right to include within the "whole counsel of God", or exclude from the "whole counsel of God", according to his own convictions rather than ecclesiastical authority, then he breaks with the confessional standards. The Reformed definition of a true church begins with the pure preaching of the Word. 

So a minister who would insist upon his right or need to preach Presuppositionalism, or Premillennialism, or The Analogical Day Theory, or Federal Vision, is breaking with the rule of faith and with the calling of his office. These are not doctrines, and have not been authorized to be preached. It would fall into the area of inciting schism in the church. That is the historical Reformed position. That is clearly what the WCF and the BC state concerning their own limitations and those of the officers of the churches.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Posts arguing for and contra theonomy moved to Law of God forum.


----------



## Civbert

bookslover said:


> This is to put the cart before the horse, and is a good illustration of just the kind of attitude that got this thread started in the first place. The first and last court of appeal is always the Scriptures.



Could you explain your comments? What do you mean by "attitude"? 

If Scriptures are "the first and last court of appeal" then I see no reason for having a statement of faith.


----------



## RamistThomist

I don't know if Mr Ritchie is thinking this but it has long been on my mind. It is troubling that in the Reformed world, when pressed in a debate or need to give an answer, many of us just copy/paste 600 pages from some unknown Puritan or the Confession, give no inferences from that statement, and expect that such solves the debate. 

Now, I guess if you are in a Reformed setting and are arguing what the confession says, that's probably valid.


----------



## ChristianTrader

SemperFideles said:


> The point in the end is that any doctrine, even if it is a-Confessional, has to be treated with care. Ministers ought to be aware of the fact when something around the fenceline is taking them in a direction where they are now disagreeing with the Church even if they didn't start out that way. At that point, they ought to be respectful of everybody in their congregation who they know has sworn an oath to the Church but not to their opinions on a doctrine. If men would merely be more clear on where they are opining in some disagreement with the Confession then there would be a lot less rancor.



Who gets to decide that something is or is not, a-Confessional? When one's wording changes? When one reaches a disagreement with another on the subject? When a General Assembly rules on the issue?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

SemperFideles said:


> I think we need to take a different look at it. In the end, we'll all find there was some error in our theology. But isn't it clear to us all that the Church has some role in Confessing? I would rather hold my peace than contribute to schism. Even if I can get Calvin, Rutherford, and Gillespie on my side, it _might_ still be a great evil to disturb the Church's unity.



Is there a criteria where we can discover when the "might be evil" becomes "it is evil"?

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> Who gets to decide that something is or is not, a-Confessional? When one's wording changes? When one reaches a disagreement with another on the subject? When a General Assembly rules on the issue?
> 
> CT



The Church's courts and, yes, eventually GA.

And this does happen by the way. The Irons case in the SoCal Presbytery is a good example of this.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> Is there a criteria where we can discover when the "might be evil" becomes "it is evil"?
> 
> CT



What schism? Read the other thread that DTK started. There are no easy answers for this because God knows the heart. This is a general warning about individuals who arrogate to themselves the role of the Church because they are so personally well-studied.


----------



## RamistThomist

I was thinking back on a few things. I guess this is one of the reasons I argued that logic and philosophy were neglected in Reformed studies.

I know a lot of young people (age 20-35, I guess) who are very good at hitting "ctrl/c + ctrl/v" but not at showing how that wins the argument. It's easy to copy and paste from the confession. Logical analyses are a lot more difficult. I realize I run the risk of painting with a broad brush. I hope I don't. 

How many of us dream at night of being the next Luther and the next Machen? We want to heroically ride in on the white horse, nail a copy of the Confession to the seminary door, and ride away in the sunset. That's a lot more fun than working hard over the long run at a university that attacks the Christian union of faith and intellect. 

It's fun to dream of being a dashing Luther, but how many of us buckle down and want to be the next Alvin Plantinga or George Marsen (there's a historian for you!)?


----------



## wsw201

Daniel,

There is a difference between the definition of the True Church and the Visible Church. The early reformers as well as the later reformers would agree that the RC is a false church but is within the visible church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Draught Horse said:


> I was thinking back on a few things. I guess this is one of the reasons I argued that logic and philosophy were neglected in Reformed studies.
> 
> I know a lot of young people (age 20-35, I guess) who are very good at hitting "ctrl/c + ctrl/v" but not at showing how that wins the argument. It's easy to copy and paste from the confession. Logical analyses are a lot more difficult. I realize I run the risk of painting with a broad brush. I hope I don't.
> 
> How many of us dream at night of being the next Luther and the next Machen? We want to heroically ride in on the white horse, nail a copy of the Confession to the seminary door, and ride away in the sunset. That's a lot more fun than working hard over the long run at a university that attacks the Christian union of faith and intellect.
> 
> It's fun to dream of being a dashing Luther, but how many of us buckle down and want to be the next Alvin Plantinga or George Marsen (there's a historian for you!)?



Jacob,

I agree with you in principle. If an argument needs to be made then the person ought to be able to articulate the argument. There are times, of course, where Calvin (or someone else) has said something remarkable that is worth quoting.

A forum, though, is like a conversation and I've always found it un-natural when people don't really "talk" but, in essence, hand you a piece of paper to read and say: "Here is my response."

I've also noticed on some threads that some people quote some former luminaries but it really doesn't fit the situation.

That all said, I think there was a time in my theological studies that I thought theological study was to get to a point where I didn't really have to rely on somebody else to help guide me into the Truth. I used to think that the guys that knew Greek and Hebrew and Church History had it made. They'd be able to decide for themselves what was true and would even be in a position to find some groundbreaking theological insight that nobody in Church History had considered.

Honestly, it's not laziness on my part. I read every chance I get. I never listen to music but always have some MP3 playing. But my goals are different. But I've simply seen where the pursuit of novelty and "trying to make a theological mark" has led men (especially those in the Federal Vision).

I don't want you to think I'm biographically describing you Jacob. This is a general observation. I do wish that our society didn't instill us such an independent spirit and distrust of authority. No matter how much I try to argue for the reasons I've arrived at a conviction that pursuit of being Confessional is a more laudable goal than pursuing independent theological thinking, some will only see in that a belief that I've put the Confessions above the Scriptures. I simply don't see it that way but find that my pursuit of being Confessional is, in itself, a charge that Scripture has laid upon me.

I wish I could find where I read it once but one thing that marked Princeton for so many years was the fact that, while the theological world around it was pursuing novel theologies, it held the line and kept teaching the same tired old Reformed theology. I have no doubt that if Hodge or Warfield had desired to "make a mark" they could have received all the laurels that the world could lay upon them. They were brilliant men but they kept teaching the same old theology.

The only "mark" I desire for any teaching capacity I have in the future will be to keep repeating the same old theology that has been Confessed for centuries. If that makes me boring or unimaginative then I can live with that.


----------



## bookslover

Civbert said:


> If Scriptures are "the first and last court of appeal" then I see no reason for having a statement of faith.



Precisely. Even the Confession itself says that the Scriptures alone are the final court of appeal. And the Confession itself admits that it can be wrong. 

The problem is that I've run across people who hold the Confession in higher regard than the Confession holds itself. Some people try to import the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" into the secondary standards, applying those terms to those documents. I'm sure the Westminster divines themselves would be shocked by this. Those terms are to be applied, of course, _only_ to the Scriptures.

The standards are nice summaries of Bible doctrine - a handy-dandy way of looking up a quick summary of doctrine. They aren't any less than that, but they aren't any more than that, either. They are useful - like the appendix to a book is useful.

I ran across this interesting statement lately. It's by Andrew A. Bonar, the 19th-century author and editor. It appears on page 28 of his introduction to the Banner of Truth edition of Samuel Rutherford's letters: _the orthodox have too often rested in the statements of our catechisms and confessions_. Again: precisely.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> I ran across this interesting statement lately. It's by Andrew A. Bonar, the 19th-century author and editor. It appears on page 28 of his introduction to the Banner of Truth edition of Samuel Rutherford's letters: _the orthodox have too often rested in the statements of our catechisms and confessions_. Again: precisely.



Good quotation, wrong context. Bonar is highlighting the problem of resting in the catechisms and confessions as "speculative truth," that is, divorced from the experiential power of the truth on the heart. His comment assumes the truth of these formularies.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Daniel,
> 
> There is a difference between the definition of the True Church and the Visible Church. The early reformers as well as the later reformers would agree that the RC is a false church but is within the visible church.



Thanks for pointing this out Wayne; I disagree with the Reformers that a false church is within the visible church, to me it is a synagogue of Satan and therefore not, in any sense, part of the visible church of Jesus Christ on earth.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

For anyone interested in reading anything more along the lines of this thread, here is a post I wrote a while back called A Quote From the Puritans is an end to all Controversy


----------



## Civbert

bookslover said:


> Precisely. Even the Confession itself says that the Scriptures alone are the final court of appeal. And the Confession itself admits that it can be wrong.


 And no one disagrees that Scripture is the final court of appeal. But it is not necessarily the first place we need to look to. The Confession of Faith is supposed to be what we believe the Bible actually teaches us. 

So when a question comes up, then we look to the Confession. If it is answer is contrary to the Confession, we don't say "oh well, maybe the confession is false". If we were to do that, then why would one call is a confession of faith. If it is contrary to the Confession, and we believe the Confession has faithfully conveyed the teachings of Scripture, then one need go no further. The only reason to go further is if the area is one you are unsure that the Confessions is correct about, or an area the Confession does not clearly address. 

To be clear, I'm not talking about issues that the confessions don't address, or the interpretation of Scripture. We do not interpret the Bible from the Confessions - but we do check our interpretations with interpretations of other areas of Scripture. And the Confessions are (in part) a summary of what we consider the correct interpretation.



bookslover said:


> The problem is that I've run across people who hold the Confession in higher regard than the Confession holds itself. Some people try to import the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" into the secondary standards, applying those terms to those documents. I'm sure the Westminster divines themselves would be shocked by this. Those terms are to be applied, of course, _only_ to the Scriptures.


I don't know who these people are you speak of. If they actually say this, then you should correct them immediately. But if this is merely an impression you've gotten from them, then maybe you should ask them to clarify their positions. It's wrong for you to hang on to any low thoughts against your brother if they are based merely on impressions and not what he as actually said to you most clearly. 



bookslover said:


> The standards are nice summaries of Bible doctrine - a handy-dandy way of looking up a quick summary of doctrine. They aren't any less than that, but they aren't any more than that, either. They are useful - like the appendix to a book is useful.


 They are _much _more than a mere summery. They also clarify the teachings of Scripture and show how they work together. You can not simply summarize from Scripture the Doctrine of the Trinity. But we confess that the Godhead is one in substance and three in person. There are many doctrines in the WCF that are not simple summaries of the Scriptures.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good post Anthony.

I agree. The fact that the Scriptures are supposed to be appealed to authoritatively is on the basis of primacy of authority as the infallible fount from which the Church forms her doctrines. It doesn't mean that if my son asks me if stealing is wrong that I tell him to read the Scriptures and find out for himself or that, when I tell him it is wrong, he says that he'll have to check that out from the Scriptures before he believes what I'm saying is true about them.

These arguments for going to the Scriptures first always ignore the community of faith that we find ourselves within. It assumes that each of us is merely making our own minds up about what the Word is and, by voluntary association, choosing the Church of people that agrees with more things we've determined autonomously from the Word than they disagree.

Once again, the question is never whether we'll have an infallible confession or a fallible confession of doctrines. The question is whether we ascribe to _ourselves_ the authority to make the fallible confession or _the Church_.


----------

