# Too much reliance on the WCF?? Full Conscription??



## Covenant Joel (Mar 13, 2005)

Sometimes it seems like many people on this board just quote the Confession as an answer to questions rather than Scripture. I am not saying that I disagree with the confession, or that it is not profitable to see what it has to say, but it sometimes seems to me that it is relied upon too much. 

Along with this, I am struggling to understand how it is possible to hold to a completely full forced conscription to the WCF. It seems that to do such makes it as high or higher than Scripture.

Joel


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 13, 2005)

Joel,
That is an excellent question and one that truly requires thought. I, too, am deeply troubled when the WCF, LBCF, 39 Arts., etc. are cited as support for belief. They are great documents, but they are fallible. The Scripture and it alone is the standard established by God by which men will be judged. In the past we've had some very interesting debates on this topic which some of us called 'Theological Traditionalism'. The debate at times became fairly, how shall we say? 'Warm'. 

As a credobaptist I fall in line most closely with the 1646 LBC. Yet, I will never hold it as a standard. The Bible is my standard. Alignment with a confession can be useful, but in the end a confession is still a manly interpretation of divine writ. It is never more and it is fallible.


----------



## Michael (Mar 13, 2005)

I don't think anyone here would place the WCF above Scripture under any circumstances (at least I hope not). As to why so many posts include quotes from the WCF, well it's because it is just that--a confession of what we faithfully believe Scripture to reveal.

I do sympathize with you, Joel, in your caution about a full forced subscription. When my wife and I first met with the elders of my church about membership they asked me if I had any reservations. I brought up the reliance on the WCF. They reassured me that the WCF was not viewed as the Word of God or infallible. It is available for revision should any error be found. Scripture is not. This helped settle the issue for me. Over time, as I have studied more, I realize that the WCF is a blessing of devotion to the Word of God. I have found nothing in it's content to unsettle my faith. Quite the contrary, it has solidified my belief exponentially.

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by Ezekiel16]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 13, 2005)

Joel,

First of all the word I think you are looking for is "subscription" unless you want to be drafted into the army! 

Secondly, the use of the Confessions is as they are in line with the Scriptures. There are several main lines of thought here:

1. I don't want to have to re-systematize what I believe the Bible teaches in a form that is less persuasive, less complete and not as comprehensive. That is, I believe that I am not as smart or as agood an exegete as the drafters of the Confession.

2. Everyone does this all the time. It is merely a matter of degree. No one treats the Unitarian in a "Christian" discussion as having an equally valid point as a Trinitarian.

3. In some instances, Creeds or Confessions are necessary to prevent heretics from hiding behind the words of Scripture (or pouring their own meaning into such words). The classic example of this is the Nicene Creed.


----------



## Michael (Mar 13, 2005)

Where is Andrew when you need him? :bigsmile:


----------



## Covenant Joel (Mar 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joel,
> 
> First of all the word I think you are looking for is "subscription" unless you want to be drafted into the army!



Hehe....yes., *cough/lie*well, just making sure everybody's on their toes*/cough/lie*

I thought something sounded funny about that. Thanks for pointing it out. As is apparent, I'm not super familiar with the whole debate. These are just my observations based on what I have seen so far. 



> Secondly, the use of the Confessions is as they are in line with the Scriptures. There are several main lines of thought here:
> 
> 1. I don't want to have to re-systematize what I believe the Bible teaches in a form that is less persuasive, less complete and not as comprehensive. That is, I believe that I am not as smart or as agood an exegete as the drafters of the Confession.
> 
> ...



I'm not arguing against having a Confession. Actually, I'm not sure that I'm arguing for anything in particular. I just don't see how there can be forced con...subscription to a Confession that deals with things that are not essentials of the faith...but on the other hand, I would not want any dispensationals in the Presbyterian Church, so where do you draw the line?

Joel


----------



## Michael (Mar 13, 2005)

I can't imagine finding any Presbyterians or otherwise who feel that the WCF is "forced" upon them. It's a confession of faith, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2005)

2 Thessalonians 2:15

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word, or by our letter."

Now the Romanist claims that this teaches oral tradition and other nonsense. I see Paul having the Thessalonians believe apostolic truth that is consistent with Scripture, although not written down as such.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 13, 2005)

see: 
The Practice of Confessional Subscription
by David W. Hall (Editor)

http://tinyurl.com/5cg9h

{URL edited to prevent window stretch - please consider using TinyUrls -FTG}

[Edited on 3/14/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 14, 2005)

Understanding what your church believes before you join is a real blessing. Churches who truly subscribe to the WCF have, through it, stated a summary of what they believe. I appricate that it is comprehensive as many churches today have very brief and uninformative statements of faith that tell you nothing of what the church actually believes. I think that the WCF has stood the test of time and much scrutiny and has proved itself to be a valid and trustworthy (biblical) summary of what God's word tells us. Therefore I personally was happy to subscribe as it summed up what I believed the bible taught.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 14, 2005)

I think it would be helpful for anyone (anyone at all) to take up some time on defining exactly what is "fallible" in those documents. If its wrong, we ought ot get it out of there.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I think it would be helpful for anyone (anyone at all) to take up some time on defining exactly what is "fallible" in those documents. If its wrong, we ought ot get it out of there.



Does not fallible mean the possibility of error? If that is the case then the whole confession is fallible. Wether there are errors or not is a seperate question. Everyone should admit the Confession(s) are fallible, and that the Bible is the only infallible document, so errors are possible in the confession(s) but that doesn't mean that there are.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Covenant Joel (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ezekiel16_
> I can't imagine finding any Presbyterians or otherwise who feel that the WCF is "forced" upon them. It's a confession of faith, nothing more, nothing less.



I wasn't suggesting that there were those who felt like that. But as I understand the complete subscription position, it would mean that a church officer could not take exception to it at any point. I would subscribe to the Confession (although at this point I am still working through infant baptism), but I don't think that therefore I can not take exception to it at any point. If that position is taken, then it does not seem that anyone can even question the accuracy of its representation of Scripture, because to question any point would be to say I don't necessarily believe it, and would then compel that person to step down. That seems to place the WCF on the level of Scripture, which I do not think it is. 

Joel

Joel


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ezekiel16_
> Where is Andrew when you need him? :bigsmile:





To quote from the WCF, Chap. I:



> IX. *The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself:* and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
> 
> X. *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*.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 14, 2005)

I would also like to remind everyone of the logical conclusion of certain lines of thought.

If you say that confessions are fallible, you must include your own. Everyone who has believed the Bible's words are true has a confession to make. The authors of the WCF and various other confessions, were making a single common confession. This is what we believe the Bible teaches. Certainly, these confessions do not equal the Bible in places they are untrue, which is why they are fallible and the Bible is not. But when the position is taken that confessions are fallible, the person making such a statement also places his own confession into this as well.

Individual confessions are not warranted from Scripture. The writer of Hebrews does not encourage us to hold fast to your confession, but hold fast to our confession. I am in no way saying that the writer had the WCF in mind when he wrote these words, but the concept should be clear. It is our confession, it is what we believe collectively. What we believe, then, becomes a gloss, not only for our fathers, but for our children. What do we learn? We learn our confession. What do we teach? We teach our confession.

The fallacy of believing that holding to confessions is more impure than holding to no confession at all has the logical conclusion of placing one's own confession above all else. There is no one man who has infallibly interpreted Scripture. Therefore, the impurity of the confession is more with an individual, than it is with a corporate expression of the body of Christ. Just because we have examples of profane and blasphemous confessions, does not mean that all confessions are not to be trusted.

Additionally, where are we told to be individual in the body of Christ? Where are we told to form our own opinion? Where are we told that the Spirit speaks and illumines our individual efforts above the corporate efforts? Yes, the Bereans did search for themselves, but we are mistaken if we think that each one went to his own house and made his own discoveries. The Christian faith is not about the individual. God has a people. God does not have persons.

Summary: Everyone has a confession. If the WCF and LBCF and the others are fallible, how much more so must the confession be of the individual who picks and chooses. If the councils are fallible, how much more so must be the individual who does not agree with them. (I am speaking of the ecumenical ones, not heretical.) We know that here, we see through a glass, dimly. We know we are fallible. We know that we err in several places. We know that the whole truth of God resides in the Scriptures. And, by faith, we have produced for us, a gloss of those truths. We do not believe in the gloss. We believe that the gloss is as faithful as it can be to that which we truly believe and place our faith in - The Holy Scriptures.

Everyone has a confession. I choose to believe in a common one, rather than one of my making, even where I do not understand.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 14, 2005)

Good logical points KC. Thanks for posting them.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Covenant Joel_
> Sometimes it seems like many people on this board just quote the Confession as an answer to questions rather than Scripture. I am not saying that I disagree with the confession, or that it is not profitable to see what it has to say, but it sometimes seems to me that it is relied upon too much.
> 
> Along with this, I am struggling to understand how it is possible to hold to a completely full forced conscription to the WCF. It seems that to do such makes it as high or higher than Scripture.
> ...




If you notice Joels concern, it comes with an honest humble spirit. WHen I read it I do not believe he is saying that we should throw them out. In some of the responses here, joels question/comment is proven. 

The Scots Confession od 1560 handle's this extremely well:

"So far then as the council confirms its decrees by the plain Word of God, so far do we reverence and embrace them. But if men, under the name of a council, pretend to forge for us new articles of faith, or to make decisions contrary to the Word of God, then we must utterly deny them as the doctrine of devils, drawing our souls from the voice of the one God to follow the doctrines of men. The reason why the general councils met was not to make any permanent law which God had not made before, nor yet to form new articles for our belief, nor to give the Word of God authority; . . . but the reason for councils, at least of those what deserve the name, was partly to refute heresies, and to give public confession of their faith to the generations following, which they did by the authority of God's written Word, and not by any opinion or prerogative that they could not err by reason of their numbers. This, we judge, was the primary reason for general councils. The second was that good policy and order shou ld be constituted and observed in the Kirk [church] where, as in the house of God, it becomes all things to be done decently and in order." 
The Scots Confession explains why, from Christ before Pilate to the present day, creeds and confessions have been important to the mission and government of the church. They are standards fallible, not absolute, for a well-ordered proclamation of the faith we embrace and defend. 

Here is another statement I found:

While Scripture is inerrant and normative because it's ultimate author -- God -- is infallible, confessions are the products of fallible men and thus it is entirely possible that they contain error. It should not be assumed that because these men were capable of erring that they necessarily did, however. It is possible, for instance, that the Westminster Confession is an entirely accurate (if not exhaustive) reflection of the doctrine contained in Scripture. But regardless of whether confessions do or do not contain error, only the Holy Scriptures are normative and inspired, and as such confessions must never be viewed as having anything other than a subordinate or secondary role. 



The problem arises when such happens:

WHen a person is asked "What do you believe about such and such?"

"I believe what the WCF believes" 

"What does the WCF believe?"

"What I believe"


That is faith by proxy and a terrible issue within the body of the church. Not only with the WCF but with all. Use creeds and confessions for what they are intended for, and that is to produce a unity of beliefs. The body is communal as well as individual. But the emphasis should be on the communal aspect of believers.


In His Grace

Joseph


----------



## AdamM (Mar 14, 2005)

Joel, I think the reason you find a reliance on the confessions around PB is that most people here are either officers or thoughtful members of confessional churches. Since all officers in these churches subscribe to the various standards, the doctrine contained in those standards ought to be our starting point and shouldn't need to be re-debated. After all, when people subscribed to those standards they did agree that the standards accurately reflected the teaching of scriptures and are under vows to reveal any changes in thought to the session or presbytery. Of course as was pointed out earlier in this thread, the standards do not ever rise above or to the same level of scripture, but in so far as they teach accurately about scripture, they carry authority of the scripture that underlies them.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The problem arises when such happens:
> 
> WHen a person is asked "What do you believe about such and such?"
> ...



I've personally never encountered a person who thinks or talks this way. Anyone who holds to the Westminster Confession -- specifically emphasizing the first chapter on God's Word -- makes a clear confession that the WCF is subordinate to the Scriptures. At the same time, they are saying that the Confession systematically teaches the doctrines of Scripture that are necessary for salvation and unity among the brethren in faith, worship and practice. Not every point addressed in the Confession is equally important, but they form a united testimony as to what Scripture teaches in areas that are most important for unity. The Confessions quoted in this thread agree and those who adhere to them agree that Scripture is the highest authority on all subjects, but the Confessions are a summary of what the Scriptures teach. Their purpose to promote unity based on truth and also to filter out error. The WCF in particular has stood the test of time. 

My personal concern about the way the WCF is treated in modern Presbyterian churches is that _too little regard_ is had for this venerable Confession. It was amended in 1787 to its detriment by most American Presbyterian churches, and there is no impediment to taking exceptions in the majority of churches of which I am aware. Even the RPCNA has a testimony that flatly contradicts the Confession in places. The denominations and congregations which adhere to the original Confession without exceptions are few and far between. Loose confessional subscription is by far the norm. So the concern about too much emphasis on the Confession is diametrically opposed to the experience with which I am acquainted in the Presbyterian world. 

Exception-taking to the Confession is, in my view, like saying the dike won't burst if we allow a few holes to develop here and there. I understand people don't often agree on a systematic teaching of the Scriptures, but allowing exceptions to faith, worship and practice as taught by the WCF, promotes individual "conscience" at the expense of unity (and truth, in my view). The history of the Presbyterian church in America, In my humble opinion, is a perfect illustration of how spiritual decline follows exception-taking. 

If the Westminster Assembly, with all of its varied viewpoints but common commitment to Reformation, could agree on the original Confession, why can't we? It is in my opinion, the best and most accurate (but not exhaustive, as has been noted) summary of Scriptural teaching around, and a heritage that ought to be upheld, and not undermined.

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> It was amended in 1787 to its detriment by most American Presbyterian churches, and there is no impediment to taking exceptions in the majority of churches of which I am aware.



And this is a good example. That is why you can find dozens of threads here that deal with the issue of the Civil Magistrate and the underlying Biblical texts. There is disagreement about the modification of the Confession at this point, hence the discussion must be directly Biblical.

For example, I disagree (respectfully) with Andrew on this point, as I believe that the 1787 WCF is a more faithful representation of the teachinng of the Bible that the 1646 (which in NO WAY should be taken as a belittlement or attack on the 1646 WCF)


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I agree Fred. I am a pretty scrict subscriptionist, but I believe that if there was one thing the Westminster Divines didn't have a really good grasp of, was Chrurch-State Releationship. I think that the confession is a marvelous document, should be taken in high regard, and if one thinks he disagrees with it, he better make extra sure and study his position well.

I also find that if anything, the WCF is NOT getting the credit it deserves in the Presbyterian Church today. Many Elders are taking "exceptions" and "scruples" with the Confession. Our assistant Pastor believes it is ok to watch images of Christ! This is riduculous in my opinion (not to mention gross idolotry), but it only shows the state of the reformed church today.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> I've personally never encountered a person who thinks or talks this way.



I was waiting for someone to respond with this. They are out there believe me. Unles every single Presbyterian is a scholar to the teachings of their confessions and creeds. Which I highly doubt.

I have personally done a survey in our Dutch Reformed Congreagation. 30% did not even know the 3 forms of unity. Their names I mean. Let alone what they say

In His grace



Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

I will now go on record, and I can be quoted and burned at the stake if anyone sopleases for this.


I believe the confessions error in regards to the fall of man. Read the following please.. From the HC

Q. 7.

Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?

A.

From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,

Adam and Eve, in Paradise; (a)

hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. (b)
(a) Gen.3; Rom.5:12,18,19. (b) Ps.51:5; Gen.5:3. 

From the LBC
2. Our first Parents by this Sin, fell from their (c) original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all; (d) all becoming dead in Sin, and wholly defiled, (e) in all the faculties, and parts, of soul, and body. 

3. They being the (f) root, and by Gods appointment, standing in the room, and stead of all mankind; the guilt of the Sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now (g) conceived in Sin, and by nature children (h) of wrath, the servants of Sin, the subjects (i) of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus (k) set them free. 


Why eve is mentioned I do not know. It is Adam who sinned for all humanity. In the recording of Genesis, when God curses, He is speaking to the singular male gender only. 

Again, Paul reinforces this in ROmans 5.... Eve is never mentioned.

I will get the logs for the fire now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

Eve is mentioned because Original Sin is twofold:

1. Sin imupted (Romans 5) --> the result of Adam's sin (not Eve's); federal heaship

2. Sin infused --> we are also given a corrupt nature that is passed down through Adam & Eve (natural generation)

Don't get excited to get burned. Do a bit more digging in the Scriptures instead.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 14, 2005)

*Fred...*

Would you say that the governmental changes that have taken place across our world have effected a change in how civil government is looked upon? In other words,, their situation obviously differs from ours, weren't they just going on the light that they had?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

KC,

I think that is part of it. Again, my opinion is not that the WCF divines "missed the boat," but that the American Adopting Act made the Confession better. Providence can aid in that process.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Eve is mentioned because Original Sin is twofold:
> 
> 1. Sin imupted (Romans 5) --> the result of Adam's sin (not Eve's); federal heaship
> ...




Thanks for not lighting the match yet Fred.

I still believe that eve has no warrant to be mentioned. We did a 4 hour debate on this last week. I am spent from it. TO speak that sin is infused if foreign to Scripture and the reforemd tradition. Just as we never speak of infused righteoussness. 

When Adam fell, his sin was imputed to us, NOT infused. To impute means, according to Romans 4:17, calling what is NOT as though it were. When Adam´s sin was imputed to us, God called us ALL sinners, as though we had all sinned.

." Since "made sinners" is paralleled with "made righteous," it must also be referring to imputation. Thus, Paul is saying that we are all made sinners in the sense that we are imputed with Adam's sin.


I have never read in any writing, or scripture where eve has any culpability of our sin nature.

COuld you please provide some for me fred? This is what the RCC teaches also.


In His grace


Joseph


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

Joseph,

You are missing my point here, I think. 

I acknowledge (with emphasis) that it is Adam's federal sin that is imputed ot us, and the cause of our sinful condition. Adam's sin is exactly as is we had sinned in the garden ourselves - it is an action imputed to us (cf. Rom 5; 1 Cor 15).

But Original Sin includes more than that. Adam's sin begets sin. It begets personal actual sin (as opposed to federal actual sin) and a sinful nature (corruption). 

This is in no way foreign to the Reformed tradition:

WCF 5.3 They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; (Gen. 1:27"“28, Gen. 2:16"“17, Acts 17:26, Rom. 5:12,15"“19, 1 Cor. 15:21"“22,45,49) and the same death in sin, *and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation*. (Ps. 51:5, Gen. 5:3, Job 14:4, Job 15:14)

4. From this *original corruption*, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (Rom. 5:6, Rom. 8:7, Rom. 7:18, Col. 1:21) and *wholly inclined to all evil*, (Gen. 6:5, Gen. 8:21, Rom. 3:10"“12) do proceed all actual transgressions. (James 1:14"“15, Eph. 2:2"“3, Matt. 15:19)


And Second Helvetic:
Sin. By sin we understand that *innate corruption of man which has been derived or propagated in us all from our first parents*, by which we, immersed in perverse desires and averse to all good are inclined to all evil. Full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt and hatred of God, we are unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves. Moreover, even as we grow older, so by wicked thoughts, words and deeds committed against God's law, we bring forth corrupt fruit worthy of an evil tree (Matt. 12:33 ff.). For this reason by our own deserts, being subject to the wrath of God, we are liable to just punishment, so that all of us would have been cast away by God if Christ, the Deliverer, had not brought us back.

Heidelberg Q7:
Q7: From where, then, does this depraved nature of man come?
A7: From the fall and disobedience of *our first parents, Adam and Eve*, in Paradise, whereby our nature became so corrupt that we are all conceived and born in sin


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> You are missing my point here, I think.
> ...



I didnt have time to edit my post regarding the reformed tradition. I meant to say foreign to scripture but not the reformed traition.

And HC Q7 is one that I believe errors. If those confessions did not say what they say in regards to our sin nature, noone except an RC would use the term infused, and noone would include eve in the mix. Her name should not be included because she is never mentioned by anyone. 

That was my original statement. And I am staying with it.



In His grace

Joseph


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 14, 2005)

I also find that if anything, the WCF is NOT getting the credit it deserves in the Presbyterian Church today. Many Elders are taking "exceptions" and "scruples" with the Confession. Our assistant Pastor believes it is ok to watch images of Christ! This is riduculous in my opinion (not to mention gross idolotry), but it only shows the state of the reformed church today. [/quote]

I have never tried to "quote" before, so I may mess this up. The issue of strict subscriptionism is an important one because it begs the question of what a presbyterian is (or should be).

You mention the issue of images. When the whole flap over the Passion of the Christ erupted last year (about which Fred and I had a lively debate) I was always curious about what it was over. We were not debating the Second Commandment. We were debating our application of our interpretation of the Westminster Divine's application of the Westminster Divine's interpretation of the Second Commandment. Something seemed vaguely troubling about that. I was at presbytery one day when a young man took exception over this very issue. His installation was sustained, largely, I think, because not everyone sees it as an issue of idolatry. In any event, I think we have to be careful that we do not devlop a tacit elevation of the Standards to a par with the Scriptures.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 14, 2005)

*Rev. Carroll*

Are you suggesting, then, that the divines were misinterpreting Scripture relating to the 2nd commandment?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## doulosChristou (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_I think we have to be careful that we do not devlop a tacit elevation of the Standards to a par with the Scriptures.



Absolutely. When church confessions become a Christian's functional authority, the confessional view of Scripture's authority is reduced to lip-service. Corporate confessions can be good and helpful, but the Bible should be both one's confessional and functional authority.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_I think we have to be careful that we do not devlop a tacit elevation of the Standards to a par with the Scriptures.
> ...



And yet at the same time, we must acknowledge that if Creeds and Confession do not have authority for the Christian, there would be no doctrine of the Trinity. For the Arians were willing to "amen" the citation of any Scripture offered by Trinitarians, _so long as they could put their own internal 'spin' on the text._ It was only when the Arians were forced to affirm or deny homoousios, that the *Biblical* position won the day.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Just as a side note, I posted a paper by Lig Duncan regarding the Standards. In particular, he discussed original intent and animus impotentis (the spirit of the entity imposing the oath). He discusses the exceptions allowed by the Church of Scotland, which led to the changes to the WCF in 1787. the thread is HERE. The post is alittle more than half way down.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 14, 2005)

*Greg...*



> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_I think we have to be careful that we do not devlop a tacit elevation of the Standards to a par with the Scriptures.
> ...



I would challenge you to find a single instance in Reformed churches who subscribe to the Westminster Standards where Scripture's authority is reduced to lip-service.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 14, 2005)

Perhaps this has already been said...

I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because _the Creed_ says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the _de facto_ infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture. 
*This does not mean that we trample the creeds underfoot!* It is possible to receive the creeds as a helpful guide, and testimony of how others have interpreted Scripture, without saying that I believe in the Trinity _because_ of the Creed. 
I believe in the Trinity for the following reason:
I believe that a synthesis of all the relevant texts requires it. The understanding of the collective group of Christians who composed the creed "“ plus the continued affirmation of that understanding by the vast majority of other Christians "“ gives me confidence and sureness in my interpretation. The collective testimony of God´s people confirms that we are being guided by the same Holy Spirit (since the Holy Spirit has been given to me just as much as to they). If my interpretation were to disagree then that should serve as a blaring warning siren that someone is wrong (since God, being a God of order, would not lead his people into mutually exclusive positions). At this point we need to step with caution and recheck our work, and recheck the work of those who came before us. 
At some point one would have to make a decision: to say that God´s people have all been misled, or that person would need to seriously consider the odds of such a proposition actually being true, and say that most likely it is he or she that is wrong and humbly defer to the opinion of the Saints. 

Either way, I absolutely reject the implicit understanding that the only group of Christians who had any real interpretive authority (or responsibility!) were those Christians who lived hundreds of years ago. To teach Scripture is to interpret Scripture, the Church is still given teachers, therefore the Church is still called to interpret Scripture. Otherwise, we have no need for teachers"¦ just research professors! 
(That to teach is to interpret and apply Scripture is commonly understood why Scripture prohibits women from doing it, though they could prophesy"¦)

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 14, 2005)

I wonder why some non-confessional groups don't see that they have set their consciences as the highest interpretor and systematic grid of scripture, thus not scripture at all. Though they would claim the bible only. They have become a thousand individual unrecorded confessionals of one. Yet, they think, they are more pure.

One would indeed be hard pressed to find a church that claims to be Christian in some form or another & states, if asked, "No, we don't adhere to the Bible alone - we just make it up as we go."

lh


----------



## Peter (Mar 14, 2005)

Just to state my beliefs, I don't want to get into a debate on the authority of the magistrate, thats been done already, I believe the WCF 1646/47 was correct and that the later revision represents Enlightenment views on toleration.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Perhaps this has already been said...
> 
> I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because _the Creed_ says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the _de facto_ infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture.
> ...



Ben: wonderfully put.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 14, 2005)

Not to speak for Fred, but I believe what he was getting at was that light, which the Holy Spirit shined on men because of the truth of Scripture, was what enabled them to overcome the Arians. Had no one stood on Scripture and common confession regarding the Trinity, then the Arians would have won the day. Oh, and they would have won the day, all the time claiming to be interpreting the Scriptures correctly.

Now my question is does the light of the truth about the Trinity need ever to be illumined again to us? Does not this light still shine, because of the truth of Scripture? We certainly need the Holy Spirit to enlighten our minds, but we do not need Him to teach us something new and never before discovered.

In this way, we understand the authoritative Scriptures on the doctrine of the Trinity partly because of the creeds. Creed is, afterall, belief. There is nothing wrong with saying I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. I am not lifting this phrase above Scripture. I am most certainly agreeing with Scripture as well as agreeing with the church through all ages.

When someone disagrees with me about a portion of the creed, say, that Christ was born of the virgin Mary, then with the Scriptures as the authority and the secondary standards as a common understanding of that authority, I should be able to tell them why they're wrong. They're not wrong only because of the Scriptures, but they're wrong also because of the church has condemned them as well through the creeds and confessions.

Light is light. The Holy Spirit's work has been easier, if it may be said so, because of the volumes and lives we have as examples.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV (Mar 14, 2005)

I see the standards of faith, I mean the Confessional Standards, as the witness of the church down through history to us, the next generation. By it we can tell whether we are one with them in doctrine and practice. 

Where I think these Standards are fallible is in the fact that they cannot be comprehensive in the same sense as Scripture. Things change with time, like the magistrate issue, and we need to change with them. The WA could not possibly have foreseen this, and so we accommodate the Confessions accordingly, so that the teachings remain the same. 

Some claim continuity with the church of all ages, but have in reality taken a turn away from that continuity, as if the truth first came to them. But it is just for these reasons that we make ourselves scholars on our forefathers in the faith. We want to prove the faith that we have, to make sure that we are not running in vain, on our own authority or interpretations.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Eve is mentioned because Original Sin is twofold:
> 
> 1. Sin imupted (Romans 5) --> the result of Adam's sin (not Eve's); federal heaship
> ...


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Are you suggesting, then, that the divines were misinterpreting Scripture relating to the 2nd commandment?
> 
> No, I'm saying that the possibility lurks that they went beyond the commandment in their application of their interpretation of the commandment. And that really was the substance of much of the discussions I observed last year, only another step removed. That is the discussions revolved over how we were applying our understanding of the Standards, rather than the Second Commandment.
> ...


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 14, 2005)

And yet at the same time, we must acknowledge that if Creeds and Confession do not have authority for the Christian, there would be no doctrine of the Trinity. For the Arians were willing to "amen" the citation of any Scripture offered by Trinitarians, _so long as they could put their own internal 'spin' on the text._ It was only when the Arians were forced to affirm or deny homoousios, that the *Biblical* position won the day. [/quote]

Authority, yes, but to what extent? I would argue (as I'm sure you would) that creeds express the understood teachings of the Bible, though they are not, in themselves, scripture...or canon...or whatever. A creed or confession has authority inasmuch as it remains in accord with the Scriptures. Therein lies the responsibility of each generation to reaffirm their creed in the light of their understanding of the Scriptures. I think an excellent example of this is the updating of the Standards that have to do with the separation of Church and State, something neither Calvin, Knox, nor the Divines envisioned.

With regards to Westminster I'm not sure I want to put it on the same level as Nicea. To begin with, Nicea as an ecumenical council spoke for the orthodox, catholic church. That level of unity no longer exists and it is difficult for any council to make such sweeping pronouncements. Second, Nicea was dealing with the larger issue of what must a *Christian* believe in order to be considered a Christian. I don't think the Divines were quite that bold in their position were they?

I realize my thoughts here have probably been unduly influenced by your friend and mine, John Frame, but he does make some good points regarding keeping creeds in their proper place.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 14, 2005)

KevinC: (not KevinE)
What then is meant by this statement?



> A creed or confession has authority inasmuch as it remains in accord with the Scriptures.



What is not in accord with Scripture, and therefore has no authority? And the fact that what is in accord with Scripture give that part of it the same authority as Scripture? What exactly do you mean? Or prehaps, what don't you mean?

On the surface of it, going directly by what you say in that statement, our respective views ought not to differ one iota. But they sure seem to. So you must mean something other by it than some of us do.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Perhaps this has already been said...
> 
> I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because _the Creed_ says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the _de facto_ infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture.
> ...



Ben,

I agree in the main. That is why I have *always* emphasized to those I have taught, and especially elder trainees, that our Confessions - unlike Rome's - are amendable. In fact, that is why I think the Adopting Act was a good thing. I don't wish to re-enter the lists in the battle over the civil magistrate either; but suffice it to say that I vie wit not as a result of the influence of the Englightenment, but rather a better interpretation of what the Scriptures teach.

But what I meant was this - creeds and confession are _necessary_. They are necessary in two senses:

1. To define the boundaries of unity (and hence what belief is outside of that communion). So for example, Baptists do not have a level of communion with paedobaptists that they do with themselves, because the reject paedobaptism. The reverse is equally true. Does that make Baptists unbelievers? mh, genoito ! 

Why? Because some articles of faith are more fundamental than others - to Kevin's point about Nicea. But that does not mean baptism is unimportant and should not be confessed.

2. Often it is only through Confessions and Creeds that the truth of the Bible can be expressed. For example, it is possible for a Unitarian to _say_ that he believes every Scripture that Ben believes. But we _know_ that this cannot be the case, because one is a Unitarian, and one a Trinitarian. The solution is to make an extra-Biblical statement that precisely points out the difference in _interpretation_ of the texts at issue.

One final point. Confessions also have a measure of authority because they are voluntary. There is no one who compelled the PCA (for example) to make the WCF its confession. They could have adopted some of it, or another Confession altogether. That is exactly (in some sense) what the Adopting Act did - it rejected a portion of the WCF. The problem with men like Frame (and Kevin has heard this _ad nauseam_) is that they want to say that the Confession is their Confession, and then say that only part of it is binding. 
"Very well," we say, "what part?" 
And the answer always is some variation of "The part that I think is important." 
So we ask, "How do you come to that conclusion?"
And the answer inevitably is some variation of "Because I say so." You see, Frame's view of subscription in DKG is not liberty, it is a license to make each man a Pope - and Frame so often thinks he is the smartest and best Pope.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 14, 2005)

> I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because the Creed says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the de facto infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture.



This is such a misapplied notion!

Let's have a discussion on the Trinity. We sit down, choose ALL the verses that apply, and read them. Then what? Do we sit in silence? Of course not. We explain the Trinity. We confess it. How? We quote the Scripture and that's all? NO! Instead, we explain it using words because the meaning behind our words and the Scriptures words ABOUT the Trinity are the SAME THING.

Take an easy example: Jesus is God. Okay, now go do a search with you bible program and find me ONE Scripture that says "Jesus is God." 

I'll wait............ ............... ............... ...............


Okay then - there isn't one. When i search in Bibleworks for the phrase "Jesus is God." it comes up with a big ZERO. 

I could quote: 

John 1:36 And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"

or

Acts 8:37 And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

or

etc. etc.

Now when I say "Jesu is God" and you agree with me, we are confessing the TRUTH of the Bible. 

This is where I find all the talk about the "confession" being raised above the Bible and etc. Not at all. When soemthig coincides with the Bible, the meaning is the same. The BIBLE is the ultiamte authority. When I say "Jesus is God" THAT is *the ultiamtely authority* _because it conveys the biblical meaning._

This is where I think that Confessional/Biblical wars are so rediculous. It is also the reason so many today miss the entire point of the confession of faith of the church through the centuries. 

I believe in the Trinity. The Bible says so. I believe that. The Confession says the SAME THING. I believe that too. Which one is not the biblical message? Neither - they both are. There is no cart and horse. There is only the mode in which the "thing" (i.e. the concepts about the Trinity) are conveyed.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 14, 2005)

*Kevin...*

{Please be careful with the quote function -- keep things clear}



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> > Are you suggesting, then, that the divines were misinterpreting Scripture relating to the 2nd commandment?



No, I'm saying that the possibility lurks that they went beyond the commandment in their application of their interpretation of the commandment. And that really was the substance of much of the discussions I observed last year, only another step removed. That is the discussions revolved over how we were applying our understanding of the Standards, rather than the Second Commandment.

I agree with those who have remarked on this thread that we must bear in mind that the Standards are the work of men. As such they are subject to error. We must always hold any statement of belief and practice up to the scrutiny of Scripture and not vice versa.

And Kevin is fine.  [/quote]

But as I said before, all confessions, to include my own, are subject to error. In that case, I would rather err with someone, than err by my lonesome.

Remember, if one says that they do not subscribe to an ecumenical creed or confession, by default, it means that this one subscribes to their own creed or confession. Everyone who claims to be Christian, holds to a creed and confession. And yet all claim to be Biblical. Something's gotta give.

Let me put it another way, in order for us to know what the Scriptures teach, we have to learn what they teach. Now, scriptural knowledge or wisdom cannot come without learning and learning cannot come without teaching. If we believe something we have learned that the Bible teaches and that belief is in error, who is the teacher? Conversely, if we believe something we have learned that the Bible teaches and it is not in error, who is the teacher?

Whichever the case, if we know the truth at all, it is because of common teaching and common learning. In this way, the truth is know by all who have been taught it, because it comes to them the same way. And we know that the truth is taught to us by the Spirit of Christ.

Therefore, the truth of Scripture is not uncommon. If it is truth, it is known commonly. This is not to say that individuals do not have levels of understanding. However, if God has revealed a singular common truth, then it stands forever and needs never be disputed. Such is the case with the doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Salvation. There is common understanding of all of these things that the Scriptures teach. But the way we know that these things are true is because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit through the ages, through fallible men, and fallible writings. It is inescapable. If we talk of heresy at all, it is because of common understanding, because it is the common understanding of the Scriptures which makes heresy, heresy. If there were no common understanding, there would be no error.

Do you understand what I'm getting at. It is one thing to say that the Scriptures are authoritative. But the demons in hell also believe this. The radical arians, donatists, and every other heretical group have all rested on the Scriptures authority. The difference between orthodoxy and heresy is common understanding and the testimony of the Spirit to the church.

Thus, secondary standards can never, and will never be raised above the Scriptures among men who are filled with the Spirit of Christ. We can multiply examples of those who have gone astray, but the Spirit did not lead them there, nor will He lead us astray if we believe the creeds and confessions are what the Bible teaches.

I just do not understand what is so wrong with the definitions we have in the creeds and confessions. How can these documents lead us astray? If we go astray at all, it is because we have placed something out of order. And what if we try to elevate the standards above the Bible? Can we really understand the standards to do so? They are built so that they cannot be placed above the Scriptures because one cannot both subscribe to them, and violate them at the same time. To teach contrary to them is not subscription, and to teach them over the Bible is not subscription. These are not the writings of Rome. Rome would have written them in such a way as to protect the confession. The confessions were written in such a way as to protect the Scriptures.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 3/15/2005 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by kceaster]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Ben,
> 
> I agree in the main. That is why I have *always* emphasized to those I have taught, and especially elder trainees, that our Confessions - unlike Rome's - are amendable. In fact, that is why I think the Adopting Act was a good thing. I don't wish to re-enter the lists in the battle over the civil magistrate either; but suffice it to say that I vie wit not as a result of the influence of the Englightenment, but rather a better interpretation of what the Scriptures teach.
> ...



Ok, I can concur with that. I would say that you can be a good, sincere Christian and not agree with any of the "nonessentials" of the WCF. However, when a group of people/churches say "this is what we believe the Bible teaches" then I don't think it is asking too much that they also say "if you want to join our ranks then you need to believe as we do." If you don't believe that the Bible teaches, say, that we should treat the Lord's Day as a sabbath rest, then that's fine... but you'll need to go find likeminded people to associate with, thank you very much.
This is essentially what I find Samuel Miller saying as Confessionalism pertains to matters of fellowship... am I correct? I'd agree with that.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because the Creed says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the de facto infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture.
> ...



Don't forget Matt 20:28!


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Yes, I think that is essentially the case.

I would only add that if someone who is not in a WCF communion does not believe in the Lord's Day, that I would say that they have missed the teaching of Scripture. But I would not say that they have failed to follow the teaching of the WCF, but Scripture itself. That case is different than the one who has said that the WCF is his Confession.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 14, 2005)

I keep reading about the "non-essentials". Does anyone want to make a list of what the non-essentials are in the Westminster Standards?

Regarding subscription, it appears that it can't be repeated enough; only officers in the Presbyterian Church are required to subscribe to the Standards and no one else. And no one puts a gun to anyones head forcing them to become an officer.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I keep reading about the "non-essentials". Does anyone want to make a list of what the non-essentials are in the Westminster Standards?



Maybe I am the wrong person to answer this, but for me, this refers simply to those portions of the Confession that are not required beliefs in order to be a Christian. That is why I can view baptists as Christians, Lutherans who do not espouse the 3rd use of the Law, and evangelicals who do not espouse the RPW.

But as far as those who have subscribed to the Confession, I see no non-essentials. Of course Frame does, and he will be happy to tell you what he has determined is non-essential, and that because he has determined that, those portions have no force.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 15, 2005)

Let me make myself a bit clearer, my point in asking what are the non-essentials is to determine what doctrines in the Standards are not actually taught in Scripture. The fact that some of the teaching of the Standards may or may not define us as "Christians", such as church government, was not my point. 

Scripture is the Word of God and the rule for life and faith for each Christian and the Church. We are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Since the Standards are based on Scripture and reflects what Scripture teaches then what part of the Standards and Scripture are non-essential for Christians to believe.

I am bringing this up because the initial question concerned how the Standards were viewed compared to Scripture and how could the Church hold to full subscription. No officer in the Presbyterian Church views the Standards as equal or above Scripture. It would be a serious exception to the Standards if they did. One that would disqualify them as an officer of the Church. And those who say that it is held above Scripture are offering a red herring argument.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Let me make myself a bit clearer, my point in asking what are the non-essentials is to determine what doctrines in the Standards are not actually taught in Scripture. The fact that some of the teaching of the Standards may or may not define us as "Christians", such as church government, was not my point.
> 
> Scripture is the Word of God and the rule for life and faith for each Christian and the Church. We are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Since the Standards are based on Scripture and reflects what Scripture teaches then what part of the Standards and Scripture are non-essential for Christians to believe.
> ...



I was not suggesting that any officers in the Presbyterian Church actually take such a position. I was commenting on something that I had noticed here and other places: A very strong reliance on the WCF, such that many times, it is quoted rather than the Scriptures. 

Having said that, though, I wish that Presbyterian churches would use the WCF more, and especially the Shorter Catechism (although personally I wish it was in somewhat more modern language). That was a great asset to me, as I learned the Catechism growing up and read the Confession. It gave me a solid doctrinal base to grow up around. 

The reason that full subscription for officers *seems* to me to be dangerous is this: If there are any discrepancies between an officers' belief and the WCf, then he would have to step down. If that is the case, then there is no possibility of ever amending the Confession, as far as I can tell. Because to even consider an amendment, the man/men considering it would have to step down, and therefore any attempt at amendment would be stopped. That would seem to make the WCF infallible, which I think is a term that should only be applied to Scripture. 

Joel


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> KevinC: (not KevinE)
> What then is meant by this statement?



I mean just that. As Reformed people we set the Scriptures above our creeds and acknowledge that our creeds (as expressions of our *understanding* of the Scriptures) are the works of men and, as such are subject to error. If we do not hold that position, we might as well go back to Rome. Their creeds are, after all, older than ours.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I keep reading about the "non-essentials". Does anyone want to make a list of what the non-essentials are in the Westminster Standards?
> 
> Regarding subscription, it appears that it can't be repeated enough; only officers in the Presbyterian Church are required to subscribe to the Standards and no one else. And no one puts a gun to anyones head forcing them to become an officer.



Therein is the rub isn't it? When the young man I mentioned in a previous post took exception to the Standards' application of the Second Commandment, his call was still sustained (albeit after much debate). So here is an example (at least in this Presbytery) of an officer who is not a strict subscriptionist.

As an interesting aside, and ammendment too his call was debated that his call be sustained with an admonitiont that he not teach his views on the Second Commandment. That ammendment we defeated on a procedural point: the BCO did not grant the Presbytery the authority to restrict someone from teaching a certain thing...Sounds like beating a speeding ticket from a local cop on a federal highway because the local community doesn't have a law establishing the speed limit. Someone should look into that rather dangerous loophole (in the BCO and not the traffic laws!).


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



As you know the extent of subscription is determined by the court. Exceptions to the Standards can be allowed by the courts depending upon the nature of the exception. It appears that the court in the case you mentioned was divided on the exception but a majority prevailed. Regarding whether the person in question can teach and preach their view, this is something that goes on in Presbyteries and Sessions across the PCA and OPC. Exceptions are granted but the person can not teach or preach that exception. I would think that your Presbytery should get a ruling from the CCB or ask the Stated Clerk on that particular issue.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Covenant Joel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Joel,

As I noted in my post to Kevin, exceptions can be allowed by the court based on the nature of the exception. If you want to take an exception regarding the Standard's position on Justification, odds are pretty good that you will get the boot! But say you want to change the wording of a section or add a Chapter that you believe the Standards do not address, you can get that changed by submitting your change through the courts of the Church.

Most of the folks who hold to full subscription will allow for an exception to the Standards as long as that exception does not disturb the essence or substance of what the Standards teach.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Kevin,

First point: the Presbytery was wrong. If a question was sent up to CCB (Committee on Constitutional Business), it would most certainly be answered that the Presbytery has that authority should it so wish. In point of fact, many Presbyteries do *exactly* that.

Second point: full subscription does not require no exceptions to the Standards (let's not forget the Catechisms!). What it does require is the man to affirm all the doctrinal substance of the Standards (_i.e._ that would not include a scruple about the word "passions" in WCF 2.1 because the word means something different today, and the man agrees with the substance of what is meant - changability, not emotion). What system subscription says is that there is a set of doctrines within the Standards (what they are, no exactly knows or states), and it is these that a man must subscribe to or take exception to. If it is a doctrine that is not "essential to the system," then the man need not be concerned about it.

So lets, not produce a straw man - full subscription does not prevent all exceptions, does not prevent vigorous debate *within the courts of the Church* regarding whether the Standards should be changed, and is not tyranny.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

So lets, not produce a straw man - full subscription does not prevent all exceptions, does not prevent vigorous debate *within the courts of the Church* regarding whether the Standards should be changed, and is not tyranny. [/quote]

I think I was using the term "strict subscription," which in my mind connotes a slavish adherence to the Standards. I'm not sure you and I would really have any disagreement at all.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Second point: full subscription does not require no exceptions to the Standards (let's not forget the Catechisms!). What it does require is the man to affirm all the doctrinal substance of the Standards (_i.e._ that would not include a scruple about the word "passions" in WCF 2.1 because the word means something different today, and the man agrees with the substance of what is meant - changability, not emotion). What system subscription says is that there is a set of doctrines within the Standards (what they are, no exactly knows or states), and it is these that a man must subscribe to or take exception to. If it is a doctrine that is not "essential to the system," then the man need not be concerned about it.



But isn't this similar to the very thing you spoke about regarding Frame's take on confessionalism in your previous post, in that it sees certain things as "doctrines" and others as somehow in a different category, similar to how men like him see "essential" and "non-essential" parts within the confession? That "unspoken" bi-categorization seems to be the very reason there is such a doctrinal mess today and such a lack of even elder subscription within the Church, since however small it may begin, the definition of what are not classified as "doctrines" and what is not binding always seems to broaden with time.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



No, Chris. There is a huge difference. In what I am describing, it is *up to the Church court* to decide whether an exception is warranted or not, may be taught or not. The court may decide to grant one man an exception (because of his humility, exegetical work, etc.) and deny the exact same exception to another man (because of his pride, lack of exegetical work, etc). No one binds the conscience of the court. 

In Frame's view (at least as described in DKG), the Church court *has no right* to deny a man an exception that (in Frame's mind) "goes beyond Scripture." It is not a matter for debate. The Church court is *wrong* in Frame's opinion if they choose not to grant an exception. But what areas are these? Well, they are fluid, with no written representation - otherwise they would be part of (or absent from) the Confession. Rather than say, "let's take article X out of the Confession," Frame and those like him would rather say, "tehre are things in the Confession that don't really count. I won't make up a list, I won't work through the courts, but I'll tell you when I feel like it which ones don't count. Oh, and you can take that on my say so, since I have no backing of a Church court, or Confession to stand on."

Sounds like mini-Popery to me.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 15, 2005)

One of the problems I see in this discussion and all the discussions regarding the Standards is the use of the terms "essential and non-essential". Since the Standards are based on Scripture then there are no "non-essential" doctrines taught in the Standards. Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian. As noted before, what you believe regarding Church Govt, ie; Preby or Independent, does not determine whether you are a Christian.

So I'll ask again, what are the non-essential teachings in the Standards?


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 15, 2005)

{Moved to The Confession of Faith Forum}


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 15, 2005)

Fred - from what you're saying about Frame, it sounds like he has a lot to learn about "house rules!" 
In what other fraternal organization do the applicants get to decide the basis of their acceptance into the group? If a person wants to associate himself with presbyterians then it should come as no shock that presbyterians expect him to hold to their standards as one of the criteria for that fellowship.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One of the problems I see in this discussion and all the discussions regarding the Standards is the use of the terms "essential and non-essential". Since the Standards are based on Scripture then there are no "non-essential" doctrines taught in the Standards. Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian. As noted before, what you believe regarding Church Govt, ie; Preby or Independent, does not determine whether you are a Christian.
> 
> So I'll ask again, what are the non-essential teachings in the Standards?



You mention that the Standards are not a litmus test to determine if someone is or is not a Christian.... but some of the doctrines in the Standards are litmus test doctrines! You cannot deny the doctrine of Chapter 2, concerning God, for instance, and still be saved. Yet, as you also point out, many of the doctrines in the Standards are not a "litmus test" that reveals one's status as saved or not. 
From what I've seen in evangelicals based upon my education at Moody (an evangelical school for true evangelicals!) and in my experience as a youth pastor in a truly evangelical denomination, the tendency among evangelicals is to declare any doctrine other than those necessary for salvation as being non-essential. 
Among semi-Reformed folks, (such as many I've seen at SBTS) they would say that those elements of the Westminster standards that capture the main thrust of reformed theology - God's sovereignty, man's depravity, etc... those are believed to be essentials for being Reformed, while one's position on specific matters such as infant baptism or the RP or the Lord's Day are not. Basically, this is a result of the confusion that results when one believes that holding to Calvinistic soteriology equates with being Reformed. Thus, those doctrines that directly relate to TULIP are often considered "essential" reformed teachings, while those doctrines that do not touch on this are non-essential.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Fred - from what you're saying about Frame, it sounds like he has a lot to learn about "house rules!"
> In what other fraternal organization do the applicants get to decide the basis of their acceptance into the group? If a person wants to associate himself with presbyterians then it should come as no shock that presbyterians expect him to hold to their standards as one of the criteria for that fellowship.



Ben,

I think the problem is more systemetic than that. Frame's point (I believe) is that the Church should not be tied to all the doctrines in the Confession, just the (really) important ones. The problem with this approach - it is not new - is "who gets to decide?" So it is implicit tyranny.

I don't have my copy of DKG anymore (I saw no need to keep it, since I found it of so little worth) so perhaps someone could actually post the relevant section on subscription. That way it is not my summary only. It is easily found, in the index under subscription, and the whole passage is like a page long.

Anyone?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



I agree. That is why from the Church's perspective, there are no false or extraBiblical doctrines in the Confession, otherwise they should be removed or changed.

But there can be and are non-essentials to the Christian faith (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity is different from the doctrine of paedobaptism). There are therefore no nonessential doctrines with respect to the Confession (i.e. every that is in the Confession is there for a reason, b/c the Church has determined that it is Biblical); but there are non-essential doctrines with respect to the faith (i.e. you don't need to believe everything in the Confession to be a Christian).

Does that make sense?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> There are therefore no nonessential doctrines with respect to the Confession (i.e. every that is in the Confession is there for a reason, b/c the Church has determined that it is Biblical); but there are non-essential doctrines with respect to the faith (i.e. you don't need to believe everything in the Confession to be a Christian).
> 
> Does that make sense?



Yes, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## doulosChristou (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian.



This is exactly why the comparisons made between Nicea and Westminster ultimately break down. The former is a litmus test; the latter is not.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_That is why from *the* Church's perspective, there are no false or extraBiblical doctrines in the Confession, otherwise they should be removed or changed.



Well, not from _the_ one true catholic Church's perspective, but perhaps from _your_ church's perspective. From the perspective of my church along with all Baptist churches, Methodist churches, Anglican churches, Lutheran churches, and so on, there certainly are false or extraBiblical doctrines in the WCF that ought to be removed or changed. :bigsmile: I would also venture to guess that there are many PCA members themselves who would say that there are at least one false or extraBiblical doctrine in the WCF.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_But there can be and are non-essentials to the Christian faith (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity is different from the doctrine of paedobaptism).



Exactly.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Fred - from what you're saying about Frame, it sounds like he has a lot to learn about "house rules!"
> In what other fraternal organization do the applicants get to decide the basis of their acceptance into the group? If a person wants to associate himself with presbyterians then it should come as no shock that presbyterians expect him to hold to their standards as one of the criteria for that fellowship.



Fred REALLY does not like Frame. However, I think he is also using hyperbole rather than really representing Frame's position. Frame in DKG spends a good deal of time defending Creeds and Confessions...provided they do not become another Bible. It is true he is not a strict subscriptionist, but that is more because of what he calls amiguity in language than any other factor. I get a lot of opportunity to (good naturedly) rib Fred about Frame in person, so I will refrain from it here. :bigsmile:


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...



I'll do it Fred!


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Greg,

By "Church" I mean more than a local congregation, and less than the exclusive visible body of Christ (that must be so, since I have alredy acknowledged that there are believers outside of those who espouse the WCF). And you are correct that there are some in the PCA who would deny the WCF's perspective. That makes them wrong. I venture to say that there is at least one person in a baptist church that does not espouse credobaptism, but I don't see that making you abandon the practice.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



But you can't get away that easy! If Nicea is a litmus test then are either all Eastern Orthodox unbelievers, or all Western Christians?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I don't have my copy of DKG anymore (I saw no need to keep it, since I found it of so little worth) so perhaps someone could actually post the relevant section on subscription. That way it is not my summary only. It is easily found, in the index under subscription, and the whole passage is like a page long.
> 
> Anyone?



Here it is. I apologize for any typos.



From The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John M. Frame (P&R, 1987), pp. 308-309

"œ[The] concept of theological progress raises anew the question of how closely we ought to be tied to our past. Granted, creeds and confessions are necessary, but what sort of allegiance do we owe to them, given our desire to move beyond them [***Lousy typists notes: he refers to contextualizing the Gospel in previous paragraphs] toward new applications?
Clearly, an extrascriptural creed is not infallible, except insofar as it accurately applies the Scriptures. But we have no way of infallibly determining when it does that. Nevertheless, a creed must have some authority, for otherwise it cannot do its job of representing the convictions of a body of believers. Thus our attitude toward our creeds should not be one of indifference. Neither, however, should it be an attitude of subscribing to a creed´s every jot ant tittle, and attitude that binds us to endorse every proposition taught in a confession. Why? Because if we are required to have that attitude towards creeds and confessions, they could never be amended; anyone who advocated change would automatically be a vow-breaker and subject to discipline. To keep them from usurping the role and authority of the Scripture as the church´s _ultimate_ [Frame´s emphasis] standard, creeds and confessions mu_must_st [Frame´s emphasis] be amendable.
Presbyterian churches have addressed this issue by using ministerial vows that do not speak of any jot-and-tittle subscription but of subscription to the "˜system of doctrine´ taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith and its Catechisms. "˜System of doctrine´ is a vague expression that has given rise to many debates about what properly belongs to the system. The unclarity in this concept has led some to urge the church to define (precisely!) once-and-for-all what belongs to the system and what does not. Rightly, the church has consistently refused to do that. For if it ever did define the "˜system´ precisely, once-and-for-all, it would then be setting forth that system and an _absolute, unamendable_ [Frame´s emphasis] authority. And to do that would, in effect, require "˜jot-and-tittle subscription,´ albeit to a somewhat abbreviated creed. Thus it seems here, as elsewhere in theology, we must be satisfied with vagueness.
The "˜system of doctrine´ is not, however, a totally unworkable concept. Requiring subscription to the "˜system´ means that he who takes the vow must accept the confession as his own confession, by and large, with some minor reservations, if necessary. Whether his reservations are minor or major (that is, whether they transgress the "˜system´) is ultimately for the church courts to decide. The "˜system´ means what a particular session, presbytery, or general assembly says that it means. As long as those courts stand under the authority of God´s Word and therefore under the guidance of His Spirit, they probably will err too greatly. There are no guarantees of perfect judgment here, but that is the nature of life in a finite and sinful world."

To this Frame appends the following footnote: "œEven with "˜jot-and-tittle´ subscription, the church courts would have to make (fallible) judgments as to whether someone was correctly interpreting the jots and tittles to which he has subscribed. It is not clear, then, that "˜strict´ subscription would give us any greater objectivity of judgment than "˜system-of-doctrine´ subscription."


----------



## doulosChristou (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



I should have said, "The former was _designed_ to be a litmus test; the latter was not."


----------



## JohnV (Mar 15, 2005)

> _posted by Fred_
> In Frame's view (at least as described in DKG), the Church court has no right to deny a man an exception that (in Frame's mind) "goes beyond Scripture." It is not a matter for debate. The Church court is wrong in Frame's opinion if they choose not to grant an exception. But what areas are these? Well, they are fluid, with no written representation - otherwise they would be part of (or absent from) the Confession. Rather than say, "let's take article X out of the Confession," Frame and those like him would rather say, "tehre are things in the Confession that don't really count. I won't make up a list, I won't work through the courts, but I'll tell you when I feel like it which ones don't count. Oh, and you can take that on my say so, since I have no backing of a Church court, or Confession to stand on."
> 
> Sounds like mini-Popery to me.


I don't know about Frame. I do know from past experience that the authority breaks down without the Confessional Standards. What we end up with is a kind of dictatorship from the pulpit, with the pastor being the authority on what the Bible says instead of a standard set of doctrines across the board for all. It quickly becomes a kind of tyrrany. The pastor's conscience becomes the standard instead of the Confessions.

Its not that we have to be experts at the Confessional standard to be accepted into the church. We need to know and be prepared for our Christian calling when we become Christians. But the essential is to accept Christ as saviour. I think a lot of people do that without ever considering whether or not there really is a God to be reconciled with; He's just a nebulous concept to them instead of real person. I wouldn't call that being converted. On the other hand, those who truly do accept Christ as saviour are eager to learn all those things that He truly teaches, and not be left to their own wandering thoughts as to the meaning of the Word. 

The Confessions are, then, a life-long learning tool, to sit at the feet, so to speak, of all the fathers of the Church in the past, to receive the wisdom of the Word from them, through the means of the Spirit. Let's not forget, that the means that God uses to minister His Word is through men preaching it. If all we need is Scripture, and we don't need the Confessions, then we also don't need preachers either. But the Confessions are the faithful basic sermon notes of the preachers throughout the ages, if you will. 

Again, quoting the Confessions is the same thing as quoting the teaching of Scripture; only it is preformulized for us instead of us using our own words. It covers the basics, goes into detail on important matters, and also covers a wide variety of basic applications of Scripture. Its all essential. Its not all necessary to know to become a Christian; it is all essential if we are trying to understand the Bible as the Church has understood it throughout the Church age, right from the time of the Apostles. 

To cut ties with that only opens the door to pastors teaching their own views on Scripture, as if they have been granted that kind of authority. They haven't. They are permitted to teach the Scripture because they have shown that they are capable of discerning its teachings arightly. No one has a right to teach on his own authority, or based on his own convictions alone. At least, that's how I understand it. 

If a pastor wants to preach a different way of understanding the second commandment because he is convicted of this new way, then he is breaking with the understanding that the majority, and with the considered understanding of the assembled fathers, and going on his own. That is tyranny from the pulpit. If he understands the Scripture, then he will acknowledge the learned fathers of the Church. And each generation has the ability and the calling to verify these standards, because we each have the Word. If there is a difference, then it needs to go through the church's channels to be proper; you can't have people going off on their own. 

So I don't see the WCF as being superimposed upon Scripture at all. Sure, some do that, and allow tradition to become the new Scripture for their time, but that's a misuse of the WCF, not a good use of them. Its a misunderstanding, in my view, when this is done; but it is equally a misunderstanding to then turn around and call them the "doctrines of man", as if they have no authority, or as if they are only men's opinions. Both of these undermine the confessional basis of the Church; the WCF represents the Church's witness. If the preacher has authority, then the Confessions have more, since they are the summary of every faithfully Scriptural sermon preached by men. They protect us from tyranny, and do not inculcate it.

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 15, 2005)

In a certain sense, to say that the confessions are fallible (which they are) and proceed from there to the conclusion that they are unreliable, if followed to its ultimate destination would mean that God is unknowable through the Word of God. The essential argument being that it isn't possible to derive reliable conclusions from the study of the Word. I reject that kind of thinking as fallicious


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 15, 2005)

> You mention that the Standards are not a litmus test to determine if someone is or is not a Christian.... but some of the doctrines in the Standards are litmus test doctrines! You cannot deny the doctrine of Chapter 2, concerning God, for instance, and still be saved. Yet, as you also point out, many of the doctrines in the Standards are not a "litmus test" that reveals one's status as saved or not.
> From what I've seen in evangelicals based upon my education at Moody (an evangelical school for true evangelicals!) and in my experience as a youth pastor in a truly evangelical denomination, the tendency among evangelicals is to declare any doctrine other than those necessary for salvation as being non-essential.
> Among semi-Reformed folks, (such as many I've seen at SBTS) they would say that those elements of the Westminster standards that capture the main thrust of reformed theology - God's sovereignty, man's depravity, etc... those are believed to be essentials for being Reformed, while one's position on specific matters such as infant baptism or the RP or the Lord's Day are not. Basically, this is a result of the confusion that results when one believes that holding to Calvinistic soteriology equates with being Reformed. Thus, those doctrines that directly relate to TULIP are often considered "essential" reformed teachings, while those doctrines that do not touch on this are non-essential.



Yes, the Standards do include all the elements of the 3 primary ecuminical creeds because the Church agrees with those creeds in that they believe that they contain exactly what Scripture teaches. But Scripture speaks to so much more than what these original creeds articulated. That is why the Standards speak to so much more of what Scripture teaches and from a Reformed perspective. Therefore the Standards as a whole are a litmus test if you want to be an officer in the Presbyterian Church. PB is essential to being a Reformed Presbyterian as well as the form of government. The Standards were not designed to be a confession for the universal church (though it ought to be!). Lutherans and Anglicans certainly would not subscribe to it. 

The fact that the broad evangelical church does not accept the fact that the Standards reflect what Scripture teaches is inconsequential. Most, if not all, do not hold to any type of Creed or Confession at all except for their own personal confession.

But what the Standards are designed for, just as any Creed or Confession is designed for is to:

1. Provide a basis of unity,
2. Serves as a tool for the edification of the Church,
3. Provides an objective standard for discipline,
4. Preservation of orthodoxy ,
5. Serves as a witness to those outside the Church,
6. Provides a criteria by which new teachings arising within the Church can be judged.

This is what the Standards do for the Presbyterian Church.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I don't know about Frame. I do know from past experience that the authority breaks down without the Confessional Standards. What we end up with is a kind of dictatorship from the pulpit, with the pastor being the authority on what the Bible says instead of a standard set of doctrines across the board for all. It quickly becomes a kind of tyrrany. The pastor's conscience becomes the standard instead of the Confessions.
> 
> The Confessions are, then, a life-long learning tool, to sit at the feet, so to speak, of all the fathers of the Church in the past, to receive the wisdom of the Word from them, through the means of the Spirit. Let's not forget, that the means that God uses to minister His Word is through men preaching it. If all we need is Scripture, and we don't need the Confessions, then we also don't need preachers either. But the Confessions are the faithful basic sermon notes of the preachers throughout the ages, if you will.
> ...



John,

I think we are in total agreement (well, almost), simply approaching the questions from two different angles. I do not know if would want to say that quoting the Confessions is the same as quoting the Scriptures without making a LOT of qualifications...so many in fact that it would be simpler to say that we believe the Confessions embody the correct understanding of them.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 15, 2005)

> John,
> 
> I think we are in total agreement (well, almost), simply approaching the questions from two different angles. I do not know if would want to say that quoting the Confessions is the same as quoting the Scriptures without making a LOT of qualifications...so many in fact that it would be simpler to say that we believe the Confessions embody the correct understanding of them.



Kevin:
Fair enough. But I would not say that the Confessions contain anything added to the Scriptures by man either. Everything it teaches is well grounded in the Word of God. We are again back to wondering what you mean by "a LOT of qualifications". It is a command of God for fathers to witness the faith to their children. And the Church has had to deal with many variations on the teachings of the Word of God. The Confessions are the culmination of all those ecclesiastical decisions, of all those strugglings, and of all the subsequent generations who have revisited the controversies. They all concur on what the Word of God teaches, and that is summarized for us in the Confessions. None of it is the teaching of men, or it would not be allowed to be in the Confessions. 

A man, no matter what his standing in the church, may not stand on the pulpit and preach a particular millennial view as a necessary Biblical doctrine, or a new view on justification, or his perticular apologetic approach, or any other thing that is left to the liberty of each believer's conscience. If he thinks he has that kind of authority, then we have the Confessions to help us to stand up to him and his dictatorial methods, for the Church does not impose these things. He may think they're Biblical, but that is no basis for preaching these views. He does not licence himself; he is duly licenced by the church, and the church is duly instituted by Christ. So the Church has not made monumental decisions in the Spirit only to throw them out at the next generation, or when the furor subsides, but stores them up for succeeding generations as a continuing witness of the Church's faithfulness to the Word of God. A man cannot lightly toss that aside, or any part of it. If he has diffuculty with some of it, then there are avenues to take. But he may not take authority upon himself that is not his.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > You mention that the Standards are not a litmus test to determine if someone is or is not a Christian.... but some of the doctrines in the Standards are litmus test doctrines! You cannot deny the doctrine of Chapter 2, concerning God, for instance, and still be saved. Yet, as you also point out, many of the doctrines in the Standards are not a "litmus test" that reveals one's status as saved or not.
> ...



Ok... I agree... are you disagreeing with my observation or were you just expanding upon them? You did ask what the "nonessentials" are... I offered an explanation of the types of things that many would say are "nonessential." In that sense the opinion of evangelicals is not inconsequential, because their opinion is (I thought) precisely what you were asking for in wanting to know what the "nonessentials" are! Perhaps we're just having communication difficulties... But I don't disagree with your statements, and I don't think that you disagree with my assessment...


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 15, 2005)

Ben,

No I don't disagree with your comments about what the broader evangelical world would consider non-essential and it is probably a communication problem! I included the comment on what a confession and creed is suppose to do just for general edification. Note that one of the things that it doesn't do is replace Scripture. 

What I was attempting to get at was what was non-essential to believe regarding the Standards ( doesn't really matter if you believe it or not), for an officer in the Presbyterian Church since only officers are required to subscribe. For example, is the covenantal structure non-essential (CoW & CoG)? How about Oaths and Vows? Marriage and Divorce? This is the argument that is going on in the PCA right now (and went on in the PCUSA at the turn of the 20th century).


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> Kevin:
> Fair enough. But I would not say that the Confessions contain anything added to the Scriptures by man either. Everything it teaches is well grounded in the Word of God. We are again back to wondering what you mean by "a LOT of qualifications". It is a command of God for fathers to witness the faith to their children. And the Church has had to deal with many variations on the teachings of the Word of God. The Confessions are the culmination of all those ecclesiastical decisions, of all those strugglings, and of all the subsequent generations who have revisited the controversies. They all concur on what the Word of God teaches, and that is summarized for us in the Confessions. None of it is the teaching of men, or it would not be allowed to be in the Confessions.
> ...



Qualifications again would being ensuring that people understood the that the Bible was the Bible and not the Confessions. I say this as one who holds to the Confessions.

I agree with your ecclesiology, your pneumatology, and your bibliology as well as with your stand on the Confessions. My only criticism (one which could be as easily leveled at ANY denomination) is that we all tend to be a little myopic. By that I mean that we ASSUME that the monumental decisions made in the Spirit (as you put it) by the Westminster Divines were, in fact, made in the Spirit and are, in fact, correct. But then again, so does every other church that subscribes to any kind of creed. So who's to say who's right? _Sola scriptura!_ The Bible informs our beliefs and not the other way around...and that is the only point I have endeavored, poorly, to make. Let me stress once again, I agree with you...I'm just saying that we must always stand ready to re-evaluate our creed in the light of the Scriptures. The PCA recognizes this and allows for the Standards to be ammended or changed (BCO 26-3).


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Fred, after all that typing you made me do when I should have been studying, I shall be very disappointed if you don't respond!


----------



## JohnV (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Kevin:

Two things. First, if you agree with all my 'tologies, then there's nothing to fight about anymore. I have to quit. 

Actually, I am always glad to know that we agree on matters when it comes down to the crunch. It's been good to get some of this stuff out for people to read and react to.

Secondly, if I may, I'd like to react to the above quote from Frame. I've read only a little of Frame's work, and am only familiar with him somewhat. It's enough to consider him likely the best defender of Presuppositionalism around, past or present. But I am familiar with this line of reasoning, as I've run into it in the past in the CRC. He's not the first to think this way. 

It's fine to a point, but there is one big objection (and one smaller one) to this, and that is that this undermines the role that the Confessions play in the church, and the duties of the office-bearers to fidelity under their calling. A Confession represents the church's statement of faith, collectively. For the sake of unity, an office-bearer ought not to go beyond or beside it in any way that is open. He must keep it quiet, and take up the matter with his peers in the church. 

One reason for this is the burden placed upon the office-bearer to maintain unity in the church. If he is minded to think another way on a matter from the Confession, then it is plain that it is a matter of difference, not of straying from Scripture on the part of the church, and so is no reason for causing a rift of any kind over his sentiments. If he publicly vocalizes his sentiments, and stirring up dissension over it, then he is causing a rift unnecessarily. It is not a matter of departure from Scripture on that particular matter, it is only a difference of understandings. When it causes a rift, then it becomes a matter of departure from Scripture, but the matter itself is only secondary anymore because the stirring up is the crux of the matter now. 

Secondly, an office-bearer in the church may not use his office, and certainly not the place of the preaching of the Word, the pulpit, as an unfair advantage in the debate. He may not unfairly add a "voice of authority", an aura of being backed up by Christ Himself, on a matter the church has not given him leave to do so. He is differing with the standard of faith carefully adopted by the church, and it is not a departure from Scripture that is in question. To use the respect due to him and his office as a point of imposition is an abuse of office.

Let's say that the minister of the Word wants to impress upon his congregation his views on Presuppositionalism. So he preaches a series of sermons on The Biblical Necessity of Presuppositionalism. Now, Presuppositionalism is an acceptable view to hold in his denomination, but it is clearly not a teaching the Bible demands, nor one the church has mandated, nor one that is settled in any way. This minister has made the decision on his own. And to quell those in the congregation who are of a different mind, he has used his office and the respect due to him as a minister of the Word, and has used the place of the preaching of the Word, to voice things which are not commanded him to preach, and for which he has been given no licence. As a matter of fact, the Confessions forbid him to do this. He has broken covenant, in fact, but using his office as an unfair advantage, to say the least. And that is not what his office is for. He is not to think of himself more highly than anyone else, opinions notwithstanding. 

So that is a major objection to Frame's point of view, in that he opens the door to the use of the offices as an unfair advantage, of imposing the free conscience of an office-bearer upon the free consciences of his congregation. In fact, it is a formula for dissension, as I see it, and as actual experience has led me to believe. 

But there is a smaller objection too. And that is it makes too much a point out of the fact that the Confessions are limited in scope, and that they stand only on the authority of Scripture and not on their own. It is true, but it takes the focus off the fact that these teachings have withstood the tests of time and experience, and that the attempt to change it is only an attempt to become more Biblical, and not to take advantage of the freedoms within the Confessional standards. Frame wants to emphasize the latter, it seems to me, at the cost of the former. 

Well, that's my view from my limited understanding. To summarize, Frame makes sense, but he doesn't really say a whole lot that is helpful in the matter of the union and freedom we have under this standard. But I am going just by what you quoted; I don't have the whole context.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 21, 2005)

One of the unfortuntate results of my fundamentalist upbringing is my penchant for knee-jerk theological outbursts, rather than carefully reasoned ones. I'm still mulling over this thread and I realized that I seem to hold two competing positions.

On the one hand, I have argued for a creedal position that holds the creeds as subservient to and commentaries on the Scriptures. As such, they are always open to review and change, if necessary. Here the Standards seem to agree:

"WCF 31.4 All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both."

But on the other hand, while I would say, we should always stand ready to re-evaluate our creeds on the basis of our understanding of Scripture, I would never, EVER, want to revisit Nicea or Chalcedon.

So does this make me hypocritical? Theologically schizophrenic? A victim of poor up-bringing? I'd welcome thoughts.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> One of the unfortuntate results of my fundamentalist upbringing is my penchant for knee-jerk theological outbursts, rather than carefully reasoned ones. I'm still mulling over this thread and I realized that I seem to hold two competing positions.
> 
> On the one hand, I have argued for a creedal position that holds the creeds as subservient to and commentaries on the Scriptures. As such, they are always open to review and change, if necessary. Here the Standards seem to agree:
> ...



No. It just makes you more sure of the doctrine of Nicea and Chalcedon than the WCF. That's not hypocritical, although it may be wrong.  After all, we do agree that Nicea was in need of amendment - that is where the _filioque_ clause comes in.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 21, 2005)

Belgic Confession, art. VII (again)


> We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
> Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.



So Kevin, unless you see the Confessions as schizophrenic in themselves, you don't really hold such a dichotomy. They themselves attest to the limitations of man's writings. That's not the point of the Confessions, or the Creeds, for that matter. It's the teachings that they teach, not the writings in themselves. They represent an accumulation of the Church's heritage and scholarship in the Word, both of which are commanded by the Word. 

But how can you see the Confessions at odd with Nicea or Chalcedon? They aren't. They're better, actually, since they've had the time and circumstance to correct, elucidate, and advance the teachings of Nicea and Chalcedon. So it's just like Fred said, I would think. But he knows a whole lot more about it than I do.


----------

