# Donald MacLeod is evidently not a strict subscriptionist.



## kevin.carroll (Apr 12, 2005)

I came across the following in his essay on "Preaching and Systematic Theology" (in The Preacher and Preaching, P&R, 1986, pp268-269):

"[When preaching] it may be appropriate to indicate defects in our catechisms and confessions. Within the Westminster tradition, the greatest blemish is probably the statement that the word of God is _contained_ [MacLeod's emphasis] in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Shorter Catechism, answer 2), which strongly suggests that there are areas of Scripture that are not the Word of God. Reservations may also have to be expressed with regard to the summary of divine attributes given in answer 4, the definition of effectual calling in answer 31, and the definition of sanctification in answer 35 (which omits all reference to _definitive_ [MacLeod's emphasis] sanctification). So far as the confession itself is concerned, the preacher may have to distance himself from the exegetical statement (added to the doctrine that Christ alone is Head of the church) that the pope is the Man of Sin. The reason such statements cannot be passed over silently is that their very inclusion in the catechisms and confessions gives authority and currency to the distortions they reflect, and if uncorrected these will become endemic to the theology of particular traditions. In the case of the allusion to the pope as the Man of Sin, the distortion adds fuel to the fires of religious bigotry."

I have to agree with the basic thrust of his comments. One of the things that does leave me vaguely uneasy is that I often see appeals on this board made to the Standards as the final arbiter of an argument. I realize we receive them as containing the system of doctrine found in the Bible and yet we must remember, too, they are the works of men and, therefore, subject to error.

He points out some classics:

SC2: What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him? A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,(1) is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.(2) 

He is right. This is simply not an adequate doctrinal statement, given the attacks on the authority of God's Word in the last century. Interestingly, the SC in Modern English reworks this answer to avoide the difficulty in the original.

SC4: What is God? A. God is a Spirit,(1) infinite,(2) eternal,(3) and unchangeable,(4) in his being,(5) wisdom,(6) power,(7) holiness,(8) justice, goodness, and truth.(9) 

Is his criticism here valid? Or can we say that the Divines were simply giving us a representative list of attributes?

SC31: What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit,(1) whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery,(2) enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ,(3) and renewing our wills,(4) he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.(5) .

I'm honestly not sure why he dislikes this one...

SC35: What is sanctification? A. Sanctification is the work of God's free grace,(1) whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God,(2) and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.(3) 

I'm not sure what he means by "definitive sanctification," so I cannot really evaluate his criticism.

CF 25:6: There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.(1) 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.(2)] 

I have to agree with him here. The Divines calling the pope THE Antichrist is flatly wrong. He may be AN anti-Christ in the same sense that anyone who promotes false doctrine is. To go beyond that is simply to ignore what the Bible has to say about anti-Christ the man and to display a militant, anti-Rome attitude that really impedes reaching out to them with the Gospel.

I'd be interested to hear feedback on MacLeod's observations? Do we go to far with our adherence to the Standards? Have we, in a de facto way, supplanted the authority of the Bible with the authority of Westminster?

Just talking...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 12, 2005)

I'm not sure MacLeod's arguments would be relevant for us OPC/PCA folk. The American version was revised to leave out that Pope is the AntiChrist part (though I'm beginning to think it should have been left in). I don't know why he would have the problems with the other. The problem of the Scriptures "containing" the Word of God is silly. The Divines simply meant that's where God's Word is, not some neo-orthodox idea of the Word somehow intermixed (whihch is probably his concern).


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 13, 2005)

Treat Donald McLeod with caution. He denies a six day creation among other things.

JH


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 13, 2005)

I'm not an expert on the churches in Scotland today, and I don't know much about MacLeod. I know that he's been investigated by his church for heresy. He chose to remain in the Free Church when it split with the Free Church (Continuing), and I don't have enough information to have an opinion on that situation. I do believe the Free Church to be much more conservative than most American Presbyterian churches. They adhere to the 1647 Confession officially and the regulative principle of worship. They wrote an excellent critique of theonomy too. 

However, I do recognize that MacLeod's criticisms of the Confession and Catechism are typical of modern declining Presbyterianism. Either he took exceptions to portions of those documents or has mental reservations about the vows he took. Either way, his criticisms are unfounded Biblically. The Confession and Catechisms are the best exposition of simple systematic Biblical truth to be found anywhere. They are not Scripture, but they do accurately represent the truth of Scripture in concise Biblical language. What is needed today is not looser subscription to the (1647) Confession, but stricter subscription. I agree with the Free Presbyterian article below. 

Free Presbyterian Article


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> Treat Donald McLeod with caution. He denies a six day creation among other things.
> 
> JH



Unfortunately many of our modern champions of the faith have not held to a 6-day view.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I'm not sure MacLeod's arguments would be relevant for us OPC/PCA folk. The American version was revised to leave out that Pope is the AntiChrist part (though I'm beginning to think it should have been left in). I don't know why he would have the problems with the other. The problem of the Scriptures "containing" the Word of God is silly. The Divines simply meant that's where God's Word is, not some neo-orthodox idea of the Word somehow intermixed (whihch is probably his concern).



I agree, his concern is somewhat anachronistic. The Divines did not have to parse what was meant by "the Word of God," like we do today thanks to the likes of Barth. Nevertheless it is also interesting how the pope stuff got in there...


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> Treat Donald McLeod with caution. He denies a six day creation among other things.
> 
> JH



So do all your Framework guys...


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I'm not an expert on the churches in Scotland today, and I don't know much about MacLeod. I know that he's been investigated by his church for heresy. He chose to remain in the Free Church when it split with the Free Church (Continuing), and I don't have enough information to have an opinion on that situation. I do believe the Free Church to be much more conservative than most American Presbyterian churches. They adhere to the 1647 Confession officially and the regulative principle of worship. They wrote an excellent critique of theonomy too.
> 
> However, I do recognize that MacLeod's criticisms of the Confession and Catechism are typical of modern declining Presbyterianism. Either he took exceptions to portions of those documents or has mental reservations about the vows he took. Either way, his criticisms are unfounded Biblically. The Confession and Catechisms are the best exposition of simple systematic Biblical truth to be found anywhere. They are not Scripture, but they do accurately represent the truth of Scripture in concise Biblical language. What is needed today is not looser subscription to the (1647) Confession, but stricter subscription. I agree with the Free Presbyterian article below.
> ...



Andrew, what are your thoughts on the PCA (for instance) leaving the door open to ammend the standards?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Andrew, what are your thoughts on the PCA (for instance) leaving the door open to ammend the standards?



Hypothetically, I am not opposed to the idea that the Standards can be modified or amended or refined. 

It is true, for example, that issues have arisen in the Church since 1647 which could be addressed in such a way as to screen out modern errors. The Church ought to be growing in its understanding of doctrine, not remaining stagnant. Church history bears witness to a fuller development of Biblical systematic theology over the centures from the Apostle's Creed to the Nicean Creed to the Reformation creeds and up to Westminster. 

However, the 1787 modifications to the Confession which bind the PCA and most American Presbyterian denominations were, in my view, a step backwards. In the current climate, I would not expect any amendments to the Confession in the PCA to be improvements but rather the contrary. I would love to be proved wrong, but I think tinkering with the Standards in an age of declension is risky to say the least.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 13, 2005)

Kevin,

The types of exceptions that MacLeod is pointing out are like the laundry list of exceptions that a number of folks in the PCA take. Virtually all of them are inane and not really exceptions. For instance, many will take exception to the fact that in Chapter 1 sec. 8 the WCF states that the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. Well there are a couple of verses in Daniel that are in Arimaic. BIG DEAL! Also, strict subscription has taken on various definitions. I don't believe any Presbyterian denomination in the US requires a word for word subscription. As long as it does not disturb the essense or substance of what the Standards teach, its not really an exception. I would not consider MacCleod's comments on SC2 an exception but simply saying in another way what SC2 means. The fact that he would word it differently is nothing serious.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> I'd be interested to hear feedback on MacLeod's observations? Do we go to far with our adherence to the Standards? Have we, in a de facto way, supplanted the authority of the Bible with the authority of Westminster?
> 
> Just talking...



As one about to become a Probationer in on of the "free churches" I might be able to help in this regard.

Rev. MacLeod (or Donny Foot as he is known as in the Highlands) would be the main reason for the Free Church (Continuing) secession. There are stong aligations leveled agaist MacLeod by well known men such as Iain Murray of Banner of Truth fame, and Moruiece Roberts (of the same fame). In Murry's book, "When Justice Failed in Church and State" (http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=2006), aligations were made public of the boch job at the General Assembly level to discipline the power player MacLeod for confessed adultery. 
MacLeod had made it very clear that he is not of the traditional line on many docrines. This was also part of the impitus for the Free Church (c) to start anew. 

MacLeod is NOT a good representation of traditional Scottish thology. I would encourage everyone to read Murray's book along with David Robertson's defence of MacLeod and the residual body and make your own decition. I for one find many good men yet in the Free Church. Their inabillity to deal with MacLeod however will eventually cause the FC to slip into modernism and liberalism (something MacLeod is driving for).

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 13, 2005)

Thanks for that information, Jerrold. I'll definitely have to read that book. Looks very interesting.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 13, 2005)

Glad to help

Jerrold:bigsmile:


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Kevin,
> 
> The types of exceptions that MacLeod is pointing out are like the laundry list of exceptions that a number of folks in the PCA take. Virtually all of them are inane and not really exceptions. For instance, many will take exception to the fact that in Chapter 1 sec. 8 the WCF states that the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. Well there are a couple of verses in Daniel that are in Arimaic. BIG DEAL! Also, strict subscription has taken on various definitions. I don't believe any Presbyterian denomination in the US requires a word for word subscription. As long as it does not disturb the essense or substance of what the Standards teach, its not really an exception. I would not consider MacCleod's comments on SC2 an exception but simply saying in another way what SC2 means. The fact that he would word it differently is nothing serious.



I suppose the laundry lists arise out of a sincere desire to be truthful in answering the question of whether or not one has exceptions. I appreciate your position but some on the list argue as if every jot and tittle of the Standards are sacrosanct. Personally, I am in complete agreement with all their theological statements, but I honestly believe some of the application statements go beyond the Scriptures.


----------

