A new Reformed Confession

[rbcbob]

The division amongst your elders over CT & TR should cause problems. The underlying philosophy of both schools are diametrically opposed. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one of those philosophies can be in line with the 2LBCF's teaching on scripture.

Non Sequitur. They might each be wrong.

 

[JohnGill]

Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF.

1) This seems to me to be a severe charge against many good brethren with whom I fellowship and to whom I grant that they in sincerity and in accordance with their understanding do indeed wholeheartedly embrace Chapter One of our Confession. They, on their part and I, on my part believe that each of us (notwithstanding textual critical disagreements) hold vigorously to 1:8 -

2LBC 1:8. "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic ..."

The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled.

2.) This is a strong assertion and is not conceded by all. It requires no small debate and demonstration. I personally am thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the Byzantine Text Form and am persuaded that the rise of critical texts in the past two centuries to be a blunder of great magnitude. However, that good brethren have given credence to the theory does not necessarily impugn their integrity.

1) My point is that the understanding of the framers of the 2LBCF and other Reformers on the Doctrine of Scripture is contrary to the philosophy of modern textual criticism and its teachings. Modern textual critics openly admit this and some even go so far as to chastise those who hold to the original intent of the Reformers as naive. In other words, one cannot hold to 1.8 unless one agrees with the original intent of the writers of 1.8. CT supporters do not. I have no problem with this, but they should re-write the confession at this point to reflect their divergence from the understanding of the original writers.

2) Whether conceded by all or not is immaterial. We can go to the writings of the Reformers on Scripture and read what they affirmed and denied. We find this in their theologies (Turretin, Owen, Gill, etc.) and in the Reformed confessions. We know that they knew of the so-called problem texts (Comma Johanneum, pericope de adultera, Mark's ending, etc.) and that they affirmed the text of the TR as "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic". The underlying texts of the CT they set aside as not useful for the church or outright condemned their usage. Their strongest condemnations were used against the Catholics who sought to undermine Sola Scriptura by an appeal to the so-called problem texts. To the Reformers, these so-called problem texts did not call into question any of the text of scripture because they believed the texts missing these "problem texts" were inferior. They kept these so-called problem texts and affirmed them as genuine. They did not believe that the TR was so polluted that it needed to be changed and reworked until it match the autographa; an impossible task as the autographa do not exist. They instead believed that the TR accurately reflected the original autographs even with the minute variations in the Byzantine text form they had and because the TR accurately reflected the original autographs that it was therefore authentic. That is a vastly different view than modern textual criticism.

Stating these simple facts does not impugn the integrity of those that implicitly or explicitly affirm the CT and claim to hold to 1.8 nor the integrity of those that implicitly or explicitly hold to some variant of evolutionism and claim to hold to Chapter 4. It merely demonstrates that they are reading their own views into the Reformed Confession. That should be pointed out to them. Just as New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology supporters, R2K supporters have also read into the confessions their own views. This is working backwards. I can make the confession say anything I want doing it that way and the FV'ers and other such groups do just that. It is similar to the practice of sodomite supporters reading their views into the texts dealing with sodomites. Now while many sodomite supporters and FV'ers do this deliberately, I believe many CT advocates and even some FV'ers, those that hold some variant of evolution, and sodomite supporters do so unknowingly. I also believe many egalitarians do this unknowingly as well. It should be made clear that one is not holding to a confession, whether the WCF, 2LBCF, Savoy Declaration, Belgic Confession, 2nd Helvetic Confession, etc., unless one is also holding to the original meaning of said confession. Just as I cannot be said to hold to what the Bible teaches about some doctrine if I am reading into it my personal beliefs, so I cannot be said to hold to some confession if I read into the confession my personal beliefs whether those beliefs deal with FV, textual criticism, New Covenant Theology, New Calvinism, egalitarianism, women deacons, pre-tribulationism, dispensationalism, etc.

 

[JohnGill]

The division amongst your elders over CT & TR should cause problems. The underlying philosophy of both schools are diametrically opposed. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one of those philosophies can be in line with the 2LBCF's teaching on scripture.

Non Sequitur. They might each be wrong.

That presupposes that the Reformers and writers of the 2LBCF did not hold to a TR position. We know from their writings that they did.

 

[DMcFadden]

As others have said, there are a few modern English 1689s out there.

The 1975 version can be found at: Founders Ministries | A Faith to Confess: The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
The 2001 revision of the 1999 Andrew Kerkham one can be viewed at: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
The newest one (Reeves) that Gonzales was touting: http://www.reeveshome.org/modern1689/1689_modern.pdf

 

[Herald]

Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF.

1) This seems to me to be a severe charge against many good brethren with whom I fellowship and to whom I grant that they in sincerity and in accordance with their understanding do indeed wholeheartedly embrace Chapter One of our Confession. They, on their part and I, on my part believe that each of us (notwithstanding textual critical disagreements) hold vigorously to 1:8 -

2LBC 1:8. "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic ..."

The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled.

2.) This is a strong assertion and is not conceded by all. It requires no small debate and demonstration. I personally am thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the Byzantine Text Form and am persuaded that the rise of critical texts in the past two centuries to be a blunder of great magnitude. However, that good brethren have given credence to the theory does not necessarily impugn their integrity.

1) My point is that the understanding of the framers of the 2LBCF and other Reformers on the Doctrine of Scripture is contrary to the philosophy of modern textual criticism and its teachings. Modern textual critics openly admit this and some even go so far as to chastise those who hold to the original intent of the Reformers as naive. In other words, one cannot hold to 1.8 unless one agrees with the original intent of the writers of 1.8. CT supporters do not. I have no problem with this, but they should re-write the confession at this point to reflect their divergence from the understanding of the original writers.

2) Whether conceded by all or not is immaterial. We can go to the writings of the Reformers on Scripture and read what they affirmed and denied. We find this in their theologies (Turretin, Owen, Gill, etc.) and in the Reformed confessions. We know that they knew of the so-called problem texts (Comma Johanneum, pericope de adultera, Mark's ending, etc.) and that they affirmed the text of the TR as "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic". The underlying texts of the CT they set aside as not useful for the church or outright condemned their usage. Their strongest condemnations were used against the Catholics who sought to undermine Sola Scriptura by an appeal to the so-called problem texts. To the Reformers, these so-called problem texts did not call into question any of the text of scripture because they believed the texts missing these "problem texts" were inferior. They kept these so-called problem texts and affirmed them as genuine. They did not believe that the TR was so polluted that it needed to be changed and reworked until it match the autographa; an impossible task as the autographa do not exist. They instead believed that the TR accurately reflected the original autographs even with the minute variations in the Byzantine text form they had and because the TR accurately reflected the original autographs that it was therefore authentic. That is a vastly different view than modern textual criticism.

Stating these simple facts does not impugn the integrity of those that implicitly or explicitly affirm the CT and claim to hold to 1.8 nor the integrity of those that implicitly or explicitly hold to some variant of evolutionism and claim to hold to Chapter 4. It merely demonstrates that they are reading their own views into the Reformed Confession. That should be pointed out to them. Just as New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology supporters, R2K supporters have also read into the confessions their own views. This is working backwards. I can make the confession say anything I want doing it that way and the FV'ers and other such groups do just that. It is similar to the practice of sodomite supporters reading their views into the texts dealing with sodomites. Now while many sodomite supporters and FV'ers do this deliberately, I believe many CT advocates and even some FV'ers, those that hold some variant of evolution, and sodomite supporters do so unknowingly. I also believe many egalitarians do this unknowingly as well. It should be made clear that one is not holding to a confession, whether the WCF, 2LBCF, Savoy Declaration, Belgic Confession, 2nd Helvetic Confession, etc., unless one is also holding to the original meaning of said confession. Just as I cannot be said to hold to what the Bible teaches about some doctrine if I am reading into it my personal beliefs, so I cannot be said to hold to some confession if I read into the confession my personal beliefs whether those beliefs deal with FV, textual criticism, New Covenant Theology, New Calvinism, egalitarianism, women deacons, pre-tribulationism, dispensationalism, etc.

Chris, enough. We are not turning this into a textual criticism thread. If you want to carry on that discussion start a new thread.

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3

 

[KMK]

The Reformed Baptist movement is growing.

This is good news. Have you seen evidence of this?

 

[Herald]

The Reformed Baptist movement is growing.

This is good news. Have you seen evidence of this?

Yes. ARBCA is planting churches. Our church adopting the 1689 LBC two years ago is anecdotal evidence. The upswing in Reformed Baptist scholarship is further proof. There is renewed interest in Calvinism among Baptists. The debates in the SBC support that. All good news in my estimation.

 

[MW]

A confession is going to function differently in different church polities. In Presbyterian and Reformed churches the congregations are united necessarily, by divine right, and the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union, so a change of confession touches on the divine right of church government. In Congregational and Independent churches, where association is voluntary, the alliance is by human choice, and the confession does nothing more than express the voluntary consent of the members, so a change of confession is not going to have the same significance as in church governments which function by divine right.

 

[Herald]

A confession is going to function differently in different church polities. In Presbyterian and Reformed churches the congregations are united necessarily, by divine right, and the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union, so a change of confession touches on the divine right of church government. In Congregational and Independent churches, where association is voluntary, the alliance is by human choice, and the confession does nothing more than express the voluntary consent of the members, so a change of confession is not going to have the same significance as in church governments which function by divine right.

Matthew,

Please explain what you mean by, "the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union". How does this impact the individual church member under the Presbyterian schema?

 

[timmopussycat]

A confession is going to function differently in different church polities. In Presbyterian and Reformed churches the congregations are united necessarily, by divine right, and the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union, so a change of confession touches on the divine right of church government. In Congregational and Independent churches, where association is voluntary, the alliance is by human choice, and the confession does nothing more than express the voluntary consent of the members, so a change of confession is not going to have the same significance as in church governments which function by divine right.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Even secular associations have constitutions that function as the basis of a union between groups that come together and changing these documents can highly significant impacts - even if all the association's members don't consent - and can lead to major repercussions. (Just ask any Canadian on this board who remembers the brohouda raised by repatriation of, and resultant amendments to, the Canadian constitution two decades ago.)

As I understand confessional RB churches, the 1689 is to RB's exactly what the WCF is to confessional Presbyterians in that each confession expresses what the community believes to be the mind of the Lord concerning critical doctrines of the Christian faith. It seems to me that a change in either confession is not a rejection of "the crown rights of King Jesus" but rather a recognition by the confessing community that it had previously misunderstood the mind of the Lord on the point in question.

 

[MW]

Tim, The ARBCA statement of Faith recommends the 1689 Confession in the words of C.H. Spurgeon: "This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith." For Presbyterian churches the Confession of Faith is their "subordinate standard."

Bill, as individual church members do not subscribe the confession the impact will only be in terms of the way the confession functions on their overseers.

 

[Herald]

Tim, The ARBCA statement of Faith recommends the 1689 Confession in the words of C.H. Spurgeon: "This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith." For Presbyterian churches the Confession of Faith is their "subordinate standard."

Matthew, I wonder how the 1689 LBC is less of a "subordinate standard" in RB churches. Membership in our church is not dependent on confessional subscription, although prospective members must agree to submit to the church's position that the confession serves as an authoritative statement on doctrine and practice, and will be used both to teach and correct. I confess that the scope and impact of confessional subscription does come down to the conviction of particular RB congregations.

 

[Petty France]

I would be a hearty supporter of making inerrancy explicit rather than implicit.

The LBCF asserts inerrancy when it says "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule." That which is certain is absolutely true. It does not have any error which would subvert the faith that you invest in it. If this makes inerrancy implicit, that is merely the result of language change over time. But the confession explicitly declares the contents of scripture to be certain, that is containing no error (compare God's knowledge which is not "uncertain" in 2.2).

If we wish to keep the ever changing Critical Text and its translations, then the confessions should be changed to reflect the doctrine of the current Reformed community. WCF/2LBCF 1.8 should be changed to reflect the current practice of modern textual criticism. We now "know" that the texts of scripture were not in fact kept pure in all ages, but needed the modern practice of textual criticism to determine for us the true text of scripture. Our confessions should reflect this change regarding scripture prevalent in the many of Reformed churches.

LBCF 1.8 simply asserts that we have not lost any scripture throughout the ages. All of the copies have survived in spite of vicious persecution and natural loss (like many ancient works that no longer exist). Considering the scarcity of many ancient works as well as the disappearance of many ancient works, and comparing that to the proliferation of texts that we have, the preservation of the Bible is rightly attributed to God's "singular care and providence." But it does not force us to say "one text has been preserved" but rather "the texts now in our possession have been preserved." We don't have to find the text behind the text as though the texts we have are not the bible. We can trust the manuscripts given to us. Nevertheless that still does not prevent us from comparing, contrasting, and collating these texts in order to avoid the minor discrepancies (not errors) that arise here and there.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Rev. Winzer,

When you made note that the Confession functions differently as a basis for union, it seems you make a significant observation in ecclesiatical polity that I believe is being missed here. In the congregational setting the substandard has only voluntary acknowledgement whereas in the Reformed Polity the Churches are bound to each other in their confession. They are responsible for observing one another and making sure the soul of the Church is kept healthy as they have the divine right and responsibility for each other. In the Congregational setting they can only make recommendations from congregation to congregation. They depend upon a unity whereas the Reformed depend upon a union that promotes unity. Am I getting this correct?

In Presbyterian and Reformed churches the congregations are united necessarily, by divine right, and the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union, so a change of confession touches on the divine right of church government. In Congregational and Independent churches, where association is voluntary, the alliance is by human choice, and the confession does nothing more than express the voluntary consent of the members, so a change of confession is not going to have the same significance as in church governments which function by divine right.

 

[Christusregnat]

I admire a thirteen-year-old's zeal to instruct a PhD in astrophysics on the finer points of his science, in a comedic sort of way.

The Westminster divines were learned in the Scriptures, theology, philosophy, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Patristics, Logic, Rhetoric, classical literature, and were refined by the fires of persecution to prepare them to write a Confession of Faith. They exceled modern men in piety, wisdom, rationality, preaching, respect of previous theologians, knowledge of contemporary opponents, and a host of other topics.

The least of these men is better than our best. We are a pool of amateurs seeking to correct an august body of learned and pious divines.

There's a technical term for this sort of attitude: laughable.

 

[timmopussycat]

I've had no dealings with ARBCA churches and thus was not aware of the ARBCA statement on their website before you pointed it out. But I notice that the statement there appears to be addressed to individuals rather than churches. If a church accepts the 1689 as the Scriptural position on matters discussed, attempts to change the confession result in the situation I mentioned.

 

[timmopussycat]

I admire a thirteen-year-old's zeal to instruct a PhD in astrophysics on the finer points of his science, in a comedic sort of way.

The Westminster divines were learned in the Scriptures, theology, philosophy, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Patristics, Logic, Rhetoric, classical literature, and were refined by the fires of persecution to prepare them to write a Confession of Faith. They exceled modern men in piety, wisdom, rationality, preaching, respect of previous theologians, knowledge of contemporary opponents, and a host of other topics.

The least of these men is better than our best. We are a pool of amateurs seeking to correct an august body of learned and pious divines.

There's a technical term for this sort of attitude: laughable.

There's a technical term for presuming that since the WD's were so learned in so many things that their formulations, more than adequate for their day, must be in no need of refinement to face later developments and decays in Christian thinking: practical heresy. And before anybody jumps on me for saying this, remember that only the Scriptures are infallible.

The rules of logic are still taught in some places today and any 13 year old could (hypothetically) show that WA made errors at one or more points by demonstrating that given WCF WSC or WLC assertions are neither direct scriptural statement nor derived by good and necessary consequence from the same. And what will be at issue in the discussions is not the age of the teacher but the accuracy of his logic.

 

[Herald]

I admire a thirteen-year-old's zeal to instruct a PhD in astrophysics on the finer points of his science, in a comedic sort of way.

The Westminster divines were learned in the Scriptures, theology, philosophy, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Patristics, Logic, Rhetoric, classical literature, and were refined by the fires of persecution to prepare them to write a Confession of Faith. They exceled modern men in piety, wisdom, rationality, preaching, respect of previous theologians, knowledge of contemporary opponents, and a host of other topics.

The least of these men is better than our best. We are a pool of amateurs seeking to correct an august body of learned and pious divines.

There's a technical term for this sort of attitude: laughable.

Adam, to whom are you referring? Whose attitude are you calling laughable?

Neither the Westminster divines nor the framers of the 1689 LBC are on a pedestal. One of the reason why these confessions have lasted for over 300 years is because they have withstood scrutiny, criticism, and inquiry. There is nothing wrong with honest questioning.

 

[MW]

But I notice that the statement there appears to be addressed to individuals rather than churches.

As Bill points out,

I confess that the scope and impact of confessional subscription does come down to the conviction of particular RB congregations.

That is all it could do. In Presbyterianism, the presbytery is the church by divine right. In congregationalism, only the congregation is the church by divine right. Thus a broader association has no right apart from what the congregations give to it. Such an association could never exercise the authority of a presbytery in the matter of confessional subscription. The two simply cannot function the same way.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Adam, to whom are you referring? Whose attitude are you calling laughable?

Neither the Westminster divines nor the framers of the 1689 LBC are on a pedestal. One of the reason why these confessions have lasted for over 300 years is because they have withstood scrutiny, criticism, and inquiry. There is nothing wrong with honest questioning.

I was wondering the same thing. Who are you speaking about Adam?

I do believe that we should hold some people and even their work with a bit more honor and reverence than others Bill. And I believe that has scriptural backing here.

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Part of the problem I see today is that the gifts of God that we have been graced with are not held with proper esteem. I am not saying we should revere Pastors or the WCF as the scriptures are worthy of. But those same scriptures also tell us that we should hold some people and their counsel with more esteem than a lot of people want to give them today. And that is understandable. We were raised in the God is dead generation. We were taught that questioning and going agains authority was healthy. But there is a point where God tells us to revere things and people a bit more than the common if their work and conversation measure up.

 

[MW]

When you made note that the Confession functions differently as a basis for union, it seems you make a significant observation in ecclesiatical polity that I believe is being missed here. In the congregational setting the substandard has only voluntary acknowledgement whereas in the Reformed Polity the Churches are bound to each other in their confession. They are responsible for observing one another and making sure the soul of the Church is kept healthy as they have the divine right and responsibility for each other. In the Congregational setting they can only make recommendations from congregation to congregation. They depend upon a unity whereas the Reformed depend upon a union that promotes unity. Am I getting this correct?

Well noted, Randy. The authority of the confession is only as strong as the authority which imposes it.

 

[MW]

And before anybody jumps on me for saying this, remember that only the Scriptures are infallible.

Where does one begin with a statement like this? First, it is your statement, not Scripture's, yet you seem to have presented it as infallible truth to be believed, which would be self-refuting. Secondly, it is a false statement. God, the Author of Scripture, is infallible, and is the source of the Bible's infallibility. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is infallible, and it is only on the basis of His infallibility that the truth we believe can be regarded as infallible. Thirdly, truth is infallible though the person believing and professing it is fallible. Otherwise man could never make a single statement that is true. Otherwise it could not please God to save them that believe through the foolishness of preaching. Otherwise a Christian could not make his calling and election sure. Otherwise there could not be translations of holy Scripture. Otherwise we should not have confessions in the first place.

 

[timmopussycat]

And before anybody jumps on me for saying this, remember that only the Scriptures are infallible.

Where does one begin with a statement like this? First, it is your statement, not Scripture's, yet you seem to have presented it as infallible truth to be believed, which would be self-refuting. Secondly, it is a false statement. God, the Author of Scripture, is infallible, and is the source of the Bible's infallibility. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is infallible, and it is only on the basis of His infallibility that the truth we believe can be regarded as infallible. Thirdly, truth is infallible though the person believing and professing it is fallible. Otherwise man could never make a single statement that is true. Otherwise it could not please God to save them that believe through the foolishness of preaching. Otherwise a Christian could not make his calling and election sure. Otherwise there could not be translations of holy Scripture. Otherwise we should not have confessions in the first place.

This response entirely misses the point I was attempting to make. May I suggest a better place to begin is with a more careful reading of the relevant portion of the original post to which I was replying together with my entire reply, thus:

I admire a thirteen-year-old's zeal to instruct a PhD in astrophysics on the finer points of his science, in a comedic sort of way.

The Westminster divines were learned in the Scriptures, theology, philosophy, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Patristics, Logic, Rhetoric, classical literature, and were refined by the fires of persecution to prepare them to write a Confession of Faith. They exceled modern men in piety, wisdom, rationality, preaching, respect of previous theologians, knowledge of contemporary opponents, and a host of other topics.

The least of these men is better than our best. We are a pool of amateurs seeking to correct an august body of learned and pious divines.

There's a technical term for this sort of attitude: laughable.

There's a technical term for presuming that since the WD's were so learned in so many things that their formulations, more than adequate for their day, must be in no need of refinement to face later developments and decays in Christian thinking: practical heresy. And before anybody jumps on me for saying this, remember that only the Scriptures are infallible.

The rules of logic are still taught in some places today and any 13 year old could (hypothetically) show that WA made errors at one or more points by demonstrating that given WCF WSC or WLC assertions are neither direct scriptural statement nor derived by good and necessary consequence from the same. And what will be at issue in the discussions is not the age of the teacher but the accuracy of his logic.

The poster to whom I had replied (and BTW, may I recommend quoting ALL the salient part of posts one replies to) rejected any attempt by moderns to correct the Westminster Divines as "laughable". It was that statement that I called a practical heresy, since it effectively presumes that the WD's were infallible. My following comment, which you quoted, was intended to ward off challenges to my claim of practical heresy by pointing out that since only God, the author of Scripture is infallible, only Scripture is allowed by Christian theology (not to mention the WCF itself) to be defined as infallible. unlike the work of the fallible Westminster Divines. I was not saying anything about the fallibility or otherwise of my own statements whatsoever. Nor was I saying anything about whether the Westminster documents should or could be revised to produce a more biblical result. I was simply challenging the a priori rejection of the possibility that the Westminster documents could ever need such revision.

My apologies for confusing you. I hope nobody else shared the same confusion.

 

[JML]

I am not opposed to the idea of a new confession. However, in saying that, my concern would be that it would be the first step down the slippery slope that modern Bible translations have gone down (I am also not opposed to modern Bible translations, in fact I use one). Instead of having a single new confession, there would be 50 new confessions serving a specific niche market. For Presbyterians, each denomination would want their own if the changes to the first one were not exactly what they wanted. For independent Baptists, well, each congregation might want their own. Then, the thing that brought unity would instead be the thing that created more division.

 

[MW]

My following comment, which you quoted, was intended to ward off challenges to my claim of practical heresy by pointing out that since only God, the author of Scripture is infallible, only Scripture is allowed by Christian theology (not to mention the WCF itself) to be defined as infallible.

Thankyou for clarifying; it is an improvement on your original statement, but it is still self-refuting, taking into account what you are trying to say in the context. Your statement is not Scripture. Your statement therefore suffers from the same defects you claim for the Westminster Confession. Yet you expect us to receive your statement as authoritative in the issue under discussion. I suggest that the Westminster Confession is a far safer guide in these matters, having been formulated with much more spiritual care and precision. It is epistemically self-consistent as it teaches that fallible men may come to be assured of infallible truth. I hope that you might see this also.

 

[timmopussycat]

My following comment, which you quoted, was intended to ward off challenges to my claim of practical heresy by pointing out that since only God, the author of Scripture is infallible, only Scripture is allowed by Christian theology (not to mention the WCF itself) to be defined as infallible.

Thank you for clarifying; it is an improvement on your original statement, but it is still self-refuting, taking into account what you are trying to say in the context. Your statement is not Scripture. Your statement therefore suffers from the same defects you claim for the Westminster Confession. Yet you expect us to receive your statement as authoritative in the issue under discussion. I suggest that the Westminster Confession is a far safer guide in these matters, having been formulated with much more spiritual care and precision. It is epistemically self-consistent as it teaches that fallible men may come to be assured of infallible truth. I hope that you might see this also.

You appear to be still missing the point. I repeat that I never said or intended any to assume that my statement charging the original poster with elevating the WCF to the level of infallibility was itself, infallible: instead I provided a reason why I believed my statement to be correct. My reason was that only Scripture is infallible. If my reason be true (and it is a fundamental principle of this board that only Scripture is infallible) it should be received as such leaving only my former statement (that the original poster had elevated the WCF to infallibility) as the one place where I might with propriety be challenged. A demonstration that the original poster's approach does not practically elevate the WCF to the level of infallibility would seem to be the subject of any disagreement here. But this is not what you appear to be doing. You seem to persist in charging me with something I did not intend despite my denial of the attributed intention.

I agree with you that the WCF is epistemmically self-consistent in that it teaches that fallible men may come to be assured of infallible truth, but can we automatically define that "infallible truth" as "every single detail of the Confession" which is the point at issue if it is right a priori to reject all challenges to the Confession? It seems to me the Confession itself is careful not to go so far when in in ch. 18:1, 2 it limits the infallible assurance under discussion to "being in a state of grace" and being "in the hope of the glory of God." And the primary doctrine mentioned in the chapter is "the promises of salvation" as the objective basis for this assurance. The Confession itself is not mentioned in this chapter but, since it is a human produced document, it is mentioned by implication in ch. 1 10's "all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men" which must be subject to and examined by "the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." And since the Confession is, by definition, a human statement, it, like any human statement is fallible i.e. potentially capable of error. But just because a human statement is potentially capable of error does not mean that it actually errs in any particular.

And I will agree with anybody that the Confession rightly understood will and has survived thousands if not tens of thousands of attempts to prove that it is false to the Bible. Those who wrote it wrote well and the vast majority of challenges to it do not survive examination. But given WCF 1:10, an a priori rejection of all challenges to the Confession's biblical accuracy has the end result of putting the Confession into the place that 1:10 reserves for Scripture alone. Now if any think this last statement is in error, please note that I am not claiming infallibility for it: I am putting it forward as a proposition for discussion.

 

[MW]

But given WCF 1:10, an a priori rejection of all challenges to the Confession's biblical accuracy has the end result of putting the Confession into the place that 1:10 reserves for Scripture alone. Now if any think this last statement is in error, please note that I am not claiming infallibility for it: I am putting it forward as a proposition for discussion.

I don't see where any person has raised the Confession to a point where it is beyond testing. When people say that it is not in need of revision one might assume that they have tested it and found it adequate for the purposes which a Confession serves. Fallibility means liability to err; it does not mean there is error. One would only revise a Confession where it is proven to be in error. Its fallibility does not prove that it has in fact erred. Westminster Confession 31 teaches liability to error does not cancel the lawful authority of councils whose determinations are "consonant to the Word of God." At the point the church has received a Confession it has judged it to be consonant to the Word of God.

 

[timmopussycat]

But given WCF 1:10, an a priori rejection of all challenges to the Confession's biblical accuracy has the end result of putting the Confession into the place that 1:10 reserves for Scripture alone. Now if any think this last statement is in error, please note that I am not claiming infallibility for it: I am putting it forward as a proposition for discussion.

I don't see where any person has raised the Confession to a point where it is beyond testing.

The poster of post 76, by dismissing all modern possibilities of revising the Westminster documents as "laughable", appears, in effect, to do just that. And that is why I made my first reply on this theme.