WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Can you subscribe to the Westminster Standards, claiming to be in full compliance with them, without being EP?
Can you subscribe to the WCF without being EP?
- Thread starter WrittenFromUtopia
- Start date
- Status
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Depends on how you define "subscription."
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Well, obviously here in America, most Presbyterian Churches exclude and take exceptions to many portions of the WCF (pope = antichrist, etc.). However, NONE of them make a note of taking exception to XXI. V. To disagree with EP, then, is to be against an accepted teaching of the confession, even in the denominations that take exceptions elsewhere.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
The Webmaster says that EP is the intent of the Westminster Confession.
Fred Greco -- with scrupulous honesty -- registered an exception to the Confession on this point:
The Assembly clearly intended for only the psalms to be sung in public or private worship as seen in the Directories for Publick and Family Worship, and in their preparation of a psalter, not a hymnal.
Accordingly, one who adheres to the Westminster Confession's teaching on religious worship cannot allow for the singing of non-(inspired) psalms without being inconsistent with its teaching.
The OPC has a majority report and a minority report on this issue. In my humble opinion, the minority report is much more faithful to the Scriptures and to the Confession.
Fred Greco -- with scrupulous honesty -- registered an exception to the Confession on this point:
The Assembly clearly intended for only the psalms to be sung in public or private worship as seen in the Directories for Publick and Family Worship, and in their preparation of a psalter, not a hymnal.
Accordingly, one who adheres to the Westminster Confession's teaching on religious worship cannot allow for the singing of non-(inspired) psalms without being inconsistent with its teaching.
The OPC has a majority report and a minority report on this issue. In my humble opinion, the minority report is much more faithful to the Scriptures and to the Confession.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
The final arbiter being the Bible, where it says psalms, hymns, and spirtual songs, the RPW does not preclude those who are not EP from subscription to the WCF. They used that Scripture as their proof text. I can fully subscribe to the WCF on worship. I simply understand from their own proof text that hymns are included as acceptable worship.
Further, I would stipulate that because hymns were not widely extant or in use during the mid 1600's, then it is perfectly logical that the divines would only include psalms. If there were no hymns or spiritual songs suitable, then how could they include them in the public and private worship of God.
The equivalent would be that they would exclude the use of Welch's grape juice by claiming only wine, when Welch's or any other grape juice for that matter, had not yet been used.
In Christ,
KC
[Edited on 7-27-2005 by kceaster]
Further, I would stipulate that because hymns were not widely extant or in use during the mid 1600's, then it is perfectly logical that the divines would only include psalms. If there were no hymns or spiritual songs suitable, then how could they include them in the public and private worship of God.
The equivalent would be that they would exclude the use of Welch's grape juice by claiming only wine, when Welch's or any other grape juice for that matter, had not yet been used.
In Christ,
KC
[Edited on 7-27-2005 by kceaster]
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I voted no (even though I am not a Presbyterian). Since we in the Reformed Kerken do not allow for exceptions to the confessions then it seems clear that one cannot (in my view) subscribe to the Westminster Confession and not hold to EP (especially if you are in denomination that practices strict subscription).
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
The language confessional language is vague. I agree that the original practice of the Westminster divines was EP and that it probably what they intended. So, in their jurisdiction the standards would have that interpretation on them. However, when unrelated denominations (eg. PCA, OPC) adopted the standards, they placed a different interpretation on them. For example, when the PCA formed in 1973 EP was not normal. It was rare. For those under the jurisdiction of the PCA the proper secondary practices to look at would be the practices of the PCA churches at the time of adoption. In that case there is no question - the PCA interpretation of the WCF allows for hymns.
The original confession and related interpretations do not bind us today (although they may be persuasively helpful), as, to the limited extent they were even adopted or used, it was by a jurisdiction that has no authority over us (Church of Scotland, and arguably the COE for a very brief time). Only some rare covenanters would disagree (ie. SWRB).
[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Scott]
The original confession and related interpretations do not bind us today (although they may be persuasively helpful), as, to the limited extent they were even adopted or used, it was by a jurisdiction that has no authority over us (Church of Scotland, and arguably the COE for a very brief time). Only some rare covenanters would disagree (ie. SWRB).
[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Scott]
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
KC, do you know the story behind the "prooftexts" of the Divines? Do you realize you are operating on an unsubstantiated presupposition to say that you adhere to the WCF because they MEANT to include hymns because they included a verse in the prooftexts that you think prove hymnody, while the Divines clearly show they believe it teaches the singing of psalms only? Wow, that was a long sentence.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
So the authorial intent of documents doesn't matter to the PCA (and others on this board)? What about Scripture? Does authorial intent matter there, or can we twist it according to our own subjective interpretations. This happens with liberals reading the US Constitution, I'm shocked it would happen with a Reformed confession of faith, among confessing Reformed peoples.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
"So the authorial intent of documents doesn't matter to the PCA (and others on this board)? What about Scripture? Does authorial intent matter there, or can we twist it according to our own subjective interpretations. This happens with liberals reading the US Constitution, I'm shocked it would happen with a Reformed confession of faith, among confessing Reformed peoples."
Of course the authorial intent of scripture is essential. The scripture has universal jurisdiction. It is inspired and has the authority of God behind it. The WCF was not written by God and does not have His authority behind it. It has the authority of the Westminster Assembly, which is basically none. The Assembly was advisory, not authoitative. It offered the standards to the English government and, depending on who you listen to, it was either never adopted or was adopted for a short period, such as a week or so.
With respect to interpeting the meaning of uninspired documents, the most important consideration is the intent of the person or organization that adopts the document as its own. The adopting organization has no duty to adopt a confession whole cloth and is free to modify it. It can modify the document in different ways, such as textual modification and interpretive modifications. The PCA's WCF has both. The PCA adopted the American version of the WCF, which changes the text to articles addressing issues such as church/state relations. The PCA also ipliedly adopted interpretive modifications on things such as EP and the celebration of holidays. Trust me, the PCA never would have adopted a document that prohibited celebration of Christmas or required EP. If the language was not broad enough to allow other interpretations, it would have just changed the text.
Scott
Of course the authorial intent of scripture is essential. The scripture has universal jurisdiction. It is inspired and has the authority of God behind it. The WCF was not written by God and does not have His authority behind it. It has the authority of the Westminster Assembly, which is basically none. The Assembly was advisory, not authoitative. It offered the standards to the English government and, depending on who you listen to, it was either never adopted or was adopted for a short period, such as a week or so.
With respect to interpeting the meaning of uninspired documents, the most important consideration is the intent of the person or organization that adopts the document as its own. The adopting organization has no duty to adopt a confession whole cloth and is free to modify it. It can modify the document in different ways, such as textual modification and interpretive modifications. The PCA's WCF has both. The PCA adopted the American version of the WCF, which changes the text to articles addressing issues such as church/state relations. The PCA also ipliedly adopted interpretive modifications on things such as EP and the celebration of holidays. Trust me, the PCA never would have adopted a document that prohibited celebration of Christmas or required EP. If the language was not broad enough to allow other interpretations, it would have just changed the text.
Scott
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Gabe...
As it pertains to the RPCNA and wine at the Lord's Table:
Do you realize you are operating on an unsubstantiated presupposition to say that you adhere to the WCF because they MEANT to include grape juice because they included a verse in the prooftexts that you think proves grape juice, while the Divines clearly show they believe it teaches that wine is to be used only?
So the authorial intent of documents doesn't matter to the RPCNA (and others on this board)? What about Scripture? Does authorial intent matter there, or can we twist it according to our own subjective interpretations. This happens with liberals reading the US Constitution, I'm shocked it would happen with a Reformed confession of faith, among confessing Reformed peoples.
KC
As it pertains to the RPCNA and wine at the Lord's Table:
Do you realize you are operating on an unsubstantiated presupposition to say that you adhere to the WCF because they MEANT to include grape juice because they included a verse in the prooftexts that you think proves grape juice, while the Divines clearly show they believe it teaches that wine is to be used only?
So the authorial intent of documents doesn't matter to the RPCNA (and others on this board)? What about Scripture? Does authorial intent matter there, or can we twist it according to our own subjective interpretations. This happens with liberals reading the US Constitution, I'm shocked it would happen with a Reformed confession of faith, among confessing Reformed peoples.
KC
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
One of the things that continues to trouble me about this discussion is that many of the prooftexts are *very* flimsy and open to a number of interpretations. It troubles me, on a hermeneutical level, how often "commands" are manufactured out of thin air. I, for one, believe the Bible, under the inspiration of the HS, has an imperative mood for a reason. If God really has a command for us, He states it as a command and not as a passing reference to a hangnail Hezekiah once had, from which we deduce a command.
Scott, paragraph #2 is dead wrong. The WCF was adopted by the GA of the Church of Scotland, an authorative Synod of Christ's church, which all presbyterian churches are descended from and ought to claim to be the successor of. It was also adopted by the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, including their king Charles I in the form of the Solemn League and covenant, in which subscribers pledged to support the Reformation and uniformity and conjunction in Confession of Faith.
W/ respect to the 3rd. Generally I agree. Though it does make me wonder about the propriety of the PCA as a Presbyterian church.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
I have already seen a few comments on this subject that state that all those churches who are not EP are sinning. Needless to say this is a bunch of hogwash.
A couple of things we need to remember about the Standards. First, they are a subordinate document. Second, it is the Church that sets doctrine for the Church. It should be noted that though the Standards must be taken very seriously by all those who subscribe, the Church can change the Standards as it sees fit. For instance, when the Church of Scotland adopted the Westminster Standards they did not accept the polity described in the Standards nor did they accept the idea that the civil magistrate could call a Synod. Both of these areas are in the original Westminster Standards and the Church of Scotland and considered them exceptions and were eventually codified in the American Version. So the fact that the Divines original intent was EP, the Church can say otherwise (which is known as the animus imponentis or "the spirit of the entity imposing the oath").
In the 2 main Presbyterian denominations (PCA and OPC), both have language in their respective Directories of Worship allowing for the singing of Psalms and HYMNS.
For the OPC, their DoW is constitutional. For the PCA only 3 chapters of the DoW are constitutional. But the preamble to the PCA DoW states clearly that the DoW is an "approved guide and should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards."
Based on the above, In my humble opinion, and I have not persued this line of thought with any Church court, an officer in the PCA or the OPC does not need to take an exception to the Standards for EP as these Churches have excersized their right of animus imponentis regarding this issue just as the Church of Scotland did.
A couple of things we need to remember about the Standards. First, they are a subordinate document. Second, it is the Church that sets doctrine for the Church. It should be noted that though the Standards must be taken very seriously by all those who subscribe, the Church can change the Standards as it sees fit. For instance, when the Church of Scotland adopted the Westminster Standards they did not accept the polity described in the Standards nor did they accept the idea that the civil magistrate could call a Synod. Both of these areas are in the original Westminster Standards and the Church of Scotland and considered them exceptions and were eventually codified in the American Version. So the fact that the Divines original intent was EP, the Church can say otherwise (which is known as the animus imponentis or "the spirit of the entity imposing the oath").
In the 2 main Presbyterian denominations (PCA and OPC), both have language in their respective Directories of Worship allowing for the singing of Psalms and HYMNS.
For the OPC, their DoW is constitutional. For the PCA only 3 chapters of the DoW are constitutional. But the preamble to the PCA DoW states clearly that the DoW is an "approved guide and should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards."
Based on the above, In my humble opinion, and I have not persued this line of thought with any Church court, an officer in the PCA or the OPC does not need to take an exception to the Standards for EP as these Churches have excersized their right of animus imponentis regarding this issue just as the Church of Scotland did.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
"The WCF was adopted by the GA of the Church of Scotland, an authorative Synod of Christ's church, which all presbyterian churches are descended from and ought to claim to be the successor of."
Peter: You are right about this, of course, and I had thought about including a reference to Scotland. In my post I was meaning the COE and the English government, as our country broke from England, not Scotland.
"It was also adopted by the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, including their king Charles I in the form of the Solemn League and covenant, in which subscribers pledged to support the Reformation and uniformity and conjunction in Confession of Faith."
The significance and application of the SLC is debateable. The SWRB group and covenanters generally are very big on this.
Peter: You are right about this, of course, and I had thought about including a reference to Scotland. In my post I was meaning the COE and the English government, as our country broke from England, not Scotland.
"It was also adopted by the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, including their king Charles I in the form of the Solemn League and covenant, in which subscribers pledged to support the Reformation and uniformity and conjunction in Confession of Faith."
The significance and application of the SLC is debateable. The SWRB group and covenanters generally are very big on this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
