A Poll on Confession Subscription

[Mushroom]

Actually, Brad, you are rejecting Sola Scriptura because what you are describing is not what the Reformed meant by the term. What you are describing is Solo Scriptura.

Maybe I'm not stating things clearly, but I am not arguing for any sort of autonomy in the interpretation of scripture, nor am I rejecting the authority of the Church or the validity of Her Confessions.. I am only declaring a lack of confidence in my own ability to understand anything comprehensively. On that basis I will say that "Let God be true and every man a liar", especially myself.

I think you're missing the point here. It is not perfect apprehension that is argued for here. In fact, it is the danger that is avoided in Confessing and wrestling with the Scriptures corporately rather than merely individually.

Perhaps my confusion derives from the poll asking "I subscribe" rather than "we subscribe". I trust my Church far more than I trust myself to understand the Word.

But the question remains, you and I both came out of what we would now call error. That being the case, were we being individualistic or adhering to solo scriptura when we left those errors?

 

[Brian Withnell]

You state too much. I do not suppose the church of the NT is different from the church of the OT, yet I still state the administration of the OT kingdom of Israel ended with that nation, and that nations will rise and fall, but the church is not subject to them in the sphere in which it operates.

So does the Confession, WCF 23.3, 30.1, yet you blame the Confession for an error in this regard.

Original wording:

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The bold of the original I take great exception to, and not to the corrected version:

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

which I accept completely.

My premise is that the original divines had no concept of church and state operating in completely separate spheres and that the church was not part of the state, and state not part of the church.

Perhaps you should read the writings of George Gillespie so that you might learn something of what the divines understood in this regard. Your assertions lack all historical basis.

If I took him as being completely authoritative, I might change my mind on the point, but that we cannot remove ourselves from our context without err I take as nearly axiomatic. We understand things in terms of what we know and have learned. It is nearly impossible for us to understand from a point of view totally foreign to us, and we will in this age do so only imperfectly. That is one reason why the challenge of understanding scripture is so difficult ... we cannot remove ourselves from our own context.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Actually, Brad, you are rejecting Sola Scriptura because what you are describing is not what the Reformed meant by the term. What you are describing is Solo Scriptura.

Maybe I'm not stating things clearly, but I am not arguing for any sort of autonomy in the interpretation of scripture, nor am I rejecting the authority of the Church or the validity of Her Confessions.. I am only declaring a lack of confidence in my own ability to understand anything comprehensively. On that basis I will say that "Let God be true and every man a liar", especially myself.

I think you're missing the point here. It is not perfect apprehension that is argued for here. In fact, it is the danger that is avoided in Confessing and wrestling with the Scriptures corporately rather than merely individually.

Perhaps my confusion derives from the poll asking "I subscribe" rather than "we subscribe". I trust my Church far more than I trust myself to understand the Word.

But the question remains, you and I both came out of what we would now call error. That being the case, were we being individualistic or adhering to solo scriptura when we left those errors?

No, I do not believe so. See WCF I. Even being convinced of the Truth of the Word is not individualistic but is a work of the Holy Spirit. I think a more apt description was that you and I were sought out by a good Shepherd who brought us into His sheepfold where we are to be trained by under-shepherds commissioned by the Good Shepherd.

 

[Mushroom]

That an individual might change his mind while he struggles to come to terms with what the Confession teaches is irrelevant to the issue of confessional subscription. At the point at which one becomes an office-bearer in the church he is supposed to have learned the Christian faith to a point that he is capable of passing it on to others. The Confession defines what he has learned and is obliged to pass on.

Well, conceding my own disqualification for Church Office, I get to dodge that bullet. I answer the poll as a mere layman.

 

[MW]

The bold of the original I take great exception to,

It is the unemboldened qualifying statement which repudiates your imputation that the divines did not teach separate spheres: "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven." If you read the Confession with this statement in mind you could not possibly come to the conclusion you have drawn.

If I took him as being completely authoritative, I might change my mind on the point, but that we cannot remove ourselves from our context without err I take as nearly axiomatic.

You are showing complete ignorance of the context within which the Assembly worked.

If error is nearly axiomatic for you then why aren't you willing to acknowledge your error that error is nearly axiomatic.

 

[Brian Withnell]

No, I do not believe so. See WCF I. Even being convinced of the Truth of the Word is not individualistic but is a work of the Holy Spirit. I think a good analogy would being sought out by a good Shepherd who brings a man into His sheepfold where he is trained by under-shepherds commissioned by the Good Shepherd.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with ... and least I put words in your mouth, please clarify.

As to the analogy, I'd ask the question of very practical concern, when I was first a Christian, young in the faith and not well trained, I attended a church that rejected the Bible as authoritative. I left that church when I realized their doctrine was so corrupt. I am not positive they were completely corrupt, but I knew they were far from the pure doctrine of the Word. Does that mean I sinned in leaving it, or was the Good Shepard leading me through a path that eventually brought me to a wide pasture with good grass and still water?

I see around me many churches that are less than ideal. Some are no churches at all, but have become so corrupt to be "synagogues of Satan". I would think that even as a true church declines, there may be some within the congregation who are the elect; and at some point they should flee. So from a practicality standpoint, those individuals would have to actually leave would they not?

I'm NOT trying to say this is the general position that we should all have a chip on our shoulder and be ready to leave the church over the color of carpet as if that were worthy of our separating ourselves. But if someone were teaching that my son's baptism was not "real" I would leave as it would be improper for me to subject him to such teaching.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was responding to Brad. I don't believe in coincidence but Providence. Providence includes preparatory grace and any other number of things that most typically only attribute to personal decision.

 

[Brian Withnell]

The bold of the original I take great exception to,

It is the unemboldened qualifying statement which repudiates your imputation that the divines did not teach separate spheres: "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven." If you read the Confession with this statement in mind you could not possibly come to the conclusion you have drawn.
[\quote]
Not only do you have to argue that against me, but the entire OPC, PCA and many minds greater than my poor intellect. The bolded portion is what was changed ... and the reasons where much in line with what I have stated. So I would argue that conclusion I have drawn was drawn by many (an entire General Assembly and the Presbyteries in the U.S. at the time of the change.) So it is not just me seeing that it is not an illogical conclusion, but many minds that have drawn the same conclusion. The unbolded is so limited in scope that it was too narrow and allowed the bolded to extend too far.

If I took him as being completely authoritative, I might change my mind on the point, but that we cannot remove ourselves from our context without err I take as nearly axiomatic.

You are showing complete ignorance of the context within which the Assembly worked.

If error is nearly axiomatic for you then why aren't you willing to acknowledge your error that error is nearly axiomatic.

I am not working in complete ignorance of the context within which the Assembly worked, but neither am I working from the same presuppositions that you are. While I acknowledge my own error (for there is error in all that we do in every area) I believe my error (and that of the OPC and PCA and other denominations that accept the revisions) are less than the error of the original and those that stand by it.

But let me be sure to say one more thing ... while we debate such things, I also feel they are minor. I would have much more to disagree with in the LBCF, and all of those are minor as well. Would that all churches held to *any* of the reformed confessions!

 

[Mushroom]

I was responding to Brad. I don't believe in coincidence but Providence. Providence includes preparatory grace and any other number of things that most typically only attribute to personal decision.

Brother! You smoked out another vestige of autonomy hiding in my head! Cool! And thank you!

I really mean that.

One last question: What is the proper view of one's own imperfect apprehension and how does that work out in our subscription to the Confession?

 

[Brian Withnell]

I was responding to Brad. I don't believe in coincidence but Providence. Providence includes preparatory grace and any other number of things that most typically only attribute to personal decision.

Proximity ... I must have posted just prior to your post, and so thought you were responding to my post.

I would of course agree ... providence is pervasive. (Ooo, I like that!)

 

[MW]

Not only do you have to argue that against me, but the entire OPC, PCA and many minds greater than my poor intellect. The bolded portion is what was changed ... and the reasons where much in line with what I have stated.

Why don't you read up on the subject before pontificating in this manner? The revision merely adapted the confession to a mild voluntaryist position in keeping with the new situation. The revision does not pronounce the false aspersions you have cast on the original confession. The revision still maintains the nursing-father role of the civil magistrate.

While I acknowledge my own error (for there is error in all that we do in every area) I believe my error (and that of the OPC and PCA and other denominations that accept the revisions) are less than the error of the original and those that stand by it.

Well, by your own confession, you have to regard this statement as error, in accord with your nearly axiomatic acceptance of error.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was responding to Brad. I don't believe in coincidence but Providence. Providence includes preparatory grace and any other number of things that most typically only attribute to personal decision.

Brother! You smoked out another vestige of autonomy hiding in my head! Cool! And thank you!

I really mean that.

One last question: What is the proper view of one's own imperfect apprehension and how does that work out in our subscription to the Confession?

Humility. I'm not sure how else to answer it. Nobody has perfect apprehension. I think there's great wisdom in the Presbyterian form of government. We all agree that one of the benefits of our American political system is how difficult it is to change a Constitution. We all grate at how people take the easy way out for expediency and simply walk around it by treating it as a "living document". Interestingly, when one reads The Divine Right of Church government, the ministers who wrote that document appealed to the light of nature as one of the arguments for the Presbyterian form of government. In other words, it makes sense.

We need our brothers and sisters in Christ. We need them as a check against indwelling sin. We need our Elders. We have been given them by Christ that they might watch over our souls. The exceptions only prove the rule when we are frustrated by those that fail. Our elders need each other to strive with one another and labor with one another. Changing what the Church is about should never be easy and the recognition that we have imperfect apprehension is a good thing. I worry more about those that act as if they understand enough to ignore the counsel of fellow elders.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Not only do you have to argue that against me, but the entire OPC, PCA and many minds greater than my poor intellect. The bolded portion is what was changed ... and the reasons where much in line with what I have stated.

Why don't you read up on the subject before pontificating in this manner? The revision merely adapted the confession to a mild voluntaryist position in keeping with the new situation. The revision does not pronounce the false aspersions you have cast on the original confession. The revision still maintains the nursing-father role of the civil magistrate.

We must be listening to different sources. The OPC version specifically removes anything dealing with doctrine from the civil magistrate. I'm sure that some of what you are reading is from your perspective.

While I acknowledge my own error (for there is error in all that we do in every area) I believe my error (and that of the OPC and PCA and other denominations that accept the revisions) are less than the error of the original and those that stand by it.

Well, by your own confession, you have to regard this statement as error, in accord with your nearly axiomatic acceptance of error.

Principle ... while not everything is pure error, nearly everything contains more or less error, even the church (25.5) and so there is some error in nearly every statement. If it were not so, one would be stating perfection exists in some area of being of men (not throughout the whole man) and then such a person would be in conflict with 13.2 of the confession ... which is the source from which I get a near axiomatic view (near, as it is not the scripture itself) of everything that is human in origin is less than pure. (Including our ability to think logically.)

 

[charliejunfan]

I confess the Original Westminster Standards as biblical in their entirety UNTIL I find something in them that is UNbiblical in my estimation, then I proceed to read further exposition on the matter while using the confession as my foremost bias. If I were to disagree with the Standards and the godly men who wrote them I would do so with a skeptical of self mindset. Insofar as my study of the confession goes I have not been able to disagree with ANYTHING, but I am not UNchangable.
I went from scripture to the confession and back to scripture to the confession, I then adopted the confession as my presupposition that must constantly be tested by other views and different passages of scripture.