Correcting the Confession

[luvroftheWord]

If we grant that the Scriptures are the church's only inspired and infallible documents, we must concede that confessions of faith, be it the WCF, LBCF, 3FU, or whatever, have the potential to have errors, since they are not inspired. Now, if there were to be a theological error in, say, the WCF, how would we go about pointing it out and correcting it?

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:ce0c9d4333="luvroftheWord"]If we grant that the Scriptures are the church's only inspired and infallible documents, we must concede that confessions of faith, be it the WCF, LBCF, 3FU, or whatever, have the potential to have errors, since they are not inspired. Now, if there were to be a theological error in, say, the WCF, how would we go about pointing it out and correcting it?[/quote:ce0c9d4333]

I would write a treatise against the error.............

I know you're not talking about the WCF; we all know that inspired men penned it!

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:1f3e5997a7="luvroftheWord"]If we grant that the Scriptures are the church's only inspired and infallible documents, we must concede that confessions of faith, be it the WCF, LBCF, 3FU, or whatever, have the potential to have errors, since they are not inspired. Now, if there were to be a theological error in, say, the WCF, how would we go about pointing it out and correcting it?[/quote:1f3e5997a7]

The only and proper channel for this is to bring the case for change, including the Scriptural evidence for such, to the Church. For example, one would bring an overture to one's Session, and then to the Presbytery, and then to the General Assembly for adoption. If the church is persuaded of the error, it will correct it. Remember that the Confession is not a detached document, but the Church's confession of what the Bible teaches.

The wrong way to go about it would be to ignore one's vow and go outside the parameters of the Church teaching against it, or (even worse) to simply go around saying [i:1f3e5997a7]ipse dixit[/i:1f3e5997a7] that the particular section in question was not really applicable because the Confession should never have spoken on that issue (of course in the speaker's opinion).

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Through the constitutional process. You submit a request via the presbytery to consider the particular issues, with your reasons why it must be changed, and request the issue be studied by the General Assembly. After that, you wait for the assigned commitee recommendation to the GA and then let the sparks fly until a decision is made. But this is highly unlikely to happen in our day since subscription to the Confessions is not enforced as it should be. There's no reason to change the Confessions when you don't have to hold to them. If you differ from the Confession, then you just state your disagreement and argue it well and they'll give you a pass.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
Thank you for the correction; this would be the proper method. If it was not the document you had previously vowed, i.e the LBC or 3FU, you wouldn't have any issue with writing a paper against it would you?

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:0218a5504e="Scott Bushey"]Fred,
Thank you for the correction; this would be the proper method. If it was not the document you had previously vowed, i.e the LBC or 3FU, you wouldn't have any issue with writing a paper against it would you?[/quote:0218a5504e]

No, you're absolutely correct. I would not be bound by a vow that it was MY confession. If we were not allowed to write in such instances, none of us could write against Arminianism, Pentecostalism, etc., since somewhere some body holds that as their confession.

 

[wsw201]

[quote:8cb77da75a="luvroftheWord"]If we grant that the Scriptures are the church's only inspired and infallible documents, we must concede that confessions of faith, be it the WCF, LBCF, 3FU, or whatever, have the potential to have errors, since they are not inspired. Now, if there were to be a theological error in, say, the WCF, how would we go about pointing it out and correcting it?[/quote:8cb77da75a]

Craig,

What Fred and Patrick have outlined is the way to go but why go through all that hassle? In the PCA it takes a 2/3 vote of a GA, then it goes to the Presbyteries for a 2/3 vote, then back to the next GA for a 2/3 vote. The best way to go about it is develop an extra-biblical group of like minded Elders, then push for a change how the subscription vows are viewed so if someone doesn't agree with what the Church confesses to be the truth of Scripture, they can pretty much ignore it. This way the Church's Confession eventually becomes a quaint historical document from a time long long ago and a land far far away and each Elder can view Scripture in what ever way they want! It works for the PCUSA!

(Am I sounding cynical?)

 

[fredtgreco]

Wayne,

It's even harder than you think. To amend the Confession requires a 3/4 vote of GA and Presbytery. It only requires 2/3 to change the BCO and hence the ordination vows.

*mental note to self - have devotions in BCO today and make Wayne do the same*

 

[wsw201]

[quote:e9627808e7="fredtgreco"]Wayne,

It's even harder than you think. To amend the Confession requires a 3/4 vote of GA and Presbytery. It only requires 2/3 to change the BCO and hence the ordination vows.

*mental note to self - have devotions in BCO today and make Wayne do the same* [/quote:e9627808e7]

It makes even more since to just change the BCO vs the Standards! I forgot that it only takes a majority of those present at GA and 2/3 of the Presbyteries then a majority of those present at the next GA.

 

[luvroftheWord]

Thanks for your input, guys. I wasn't sure what the process was, but now I know.

 

[wsw201]

Craig,

Is there something you want to change in the Standards?

 

[JohnV]

Craig:
This is what I think about this. Correct me if I am wrong. Please!

Fred and Patrick are right, if you are an office-bearer in the church, or want to take the responsible route if you are not.

If a person is convinced that the Confession the church holds to is in error, then he may state that he differs with the Confession, provided he is not an office-bearer. If he is an office-bearer, and he differs with the Confession on some point, and he finds it necessary to make a stand for it, then he must resign the office before he can state his difference. He must not be disruptive in stating his view, but he has a right, under the same Confession, to hold to what he sincerely believes the Bible to teach.

For a member is a member by faith in Christ and His Word, not by adherence to the Confessions. If one believes, even if he differs with the Confessions, he cannot be excluded from the Covenant community. But he is admonished to uphold the standards, and not to be rash or to cause disunity. A person can uphold the standards by respecting the beliefs of those who hold to the Confessions, just as he expects to be respected for those things he believes which may differ. It's certainly not the usual, but it does happen from time to time.

The way to go about it, beyond the legality of it, is to allow the truth to have its way. State the objection, and allow for free discussion on it. Watch for certain things in the discussion, to make sure that the truth of the matter is foremost in the discussion, and not some other motive. If the matter cannot be resolved on the basis of truth alone, then the matter is not ready for address for change, even if the person remains convinced. But if other interests seem to override the issue at hand, then it is clear that the matter will need time and quiet persistence to come to light in the end.

At no time can this be approached with favouritism or bias. One must be convinced of objectivity in the matter. And that is the sticky point often.

So the person who objects has a very heavy onus upon himself to subject himself to every form of criticism that is available. He must patiently withstand it; or to put it exactly, he must withstand it so that he also allows himself to be corrected if he is wrong, while he also has the confidence that it is the truth, not himself, that is able to withstand any and all criticism. If he wishes to correct, he must himself be willing for correction first of all.

A matter of changing something in the Confession is a matter of interest for all, and is for the good of all if it is right. If it is approached in a spirit of antagonism, it is defeated before it starts; for even if the correction is right, it is not for that purpose. A person is using his "correctness" to divide, and that is a misuse of sincere faith. As soon as his own importance takes precedence over the truth of the matter itself, it is a defeated attempt. That is why personal interest has to take a back seat in any attempt to make a correction to the Confessions. And that is why one must be willing to take a great deal of time in considering it before he speaks up. And that is why one must be willing for it to take a long time to effect the change he sees necessary.

 

[luvroftheWord]

JohnV,

I think I would agree with you. But I think that ordained ministers in the PCA can take exceptions to the WCF as long as the exceptions are considered to be minor to the session. I may be wrong about that, but I know of some PCA elders that have taken exceptions. Whether or not this is in keeping with the BCO or whatever, that I'm not sure of. As a member of the PCA, I claim to subscribe to the WCF, though at this time there are things I would take exception to. But as I have said before, I would like to be ordained in the Presbyterian church, and if that means ordination in the PCA, I would change my convictions to match the WCF, unless the session felt my exceptions weren't major. But I wouldn't raise a stink over my differences.

 

[JohnV]

Craig:
If you are willing to change your convictions depending on the denomination that ordains you, then they are not convictions of the same sort that would demand taking exceptions or making a stand to differ with the Confessions. The question of the right of a Presbyter to take exceptions to the WCF is an issue that I can see a distinct need for, and yet see it as problematic. I think that what I said in my previous post is very important to what one does with differences. I can see, on the one hand, your willingness to acquiesce on some matters. I do the same, for as member in the OPC I officially hold to the WCF, but my heart is still with the TFU.

I'm not going to make an issue out of nuances that have historically made for a marked difference between denominations which adhere to these separate confessional statements. At heart I am still CRC, what it used to be, and that will be very hard to change. Lately I have been finding out that the CRC of old is not dead, as I previously thought it was. Some discussions with CRC people of late have been of a very uplifting nature. And they are humble about it too. Very encouraging for me. But I also know that the intent and core of the WCF is no different than the TFU. So what I would differ with most is not the WCF per se, but rather the tradition that the particular congregation holds to, which they would confuse with the WCF itself. And that is an entirely different matter, although again the onus of truth and unity is all the same still.

 

[luvroftheWord]

John,

My exceptions would be considered a big deal by some. For example, my leanings toward paedocommunion would be problematic when I stand before the presbytery. I hope that my leanings in that direction will be considered safe enough for me to be ordained while taking that exception to the standards. But my fear is that this won't be the case. And because I am not an autonomous mind, but I exist in the body of Christ with other theological leaders, I am willing to be submissive to my denomination both for the sake of unity and because of the simple fact that I could be wrong, and I am surrounded by a large number of elders that think I am. In other words, I would submit myself to the church in that instance trusting in that the Holy Spirit is at work leading the body of Christ in all truth. That doesn't change the strength of my convictions as much as it shows the strength of other convictions I have as well, namely, the authority of the church. It is very difficult sometimes to find the balance between trusting your own judgment of the Scriptures and the judgment of the church. But I am convinced that both are necessary.

 

[JohnV]

My brother has been an elder for many years, in a denomination that has handled the question at the highest level, and has turned down the notion of paedocommunion. And yet he believes in it, and has since he made profession of his faith. He has a place for his own views, but he knows how to separate it from his duties as elder, part of which is to maintain unity in the church.

If you become ordained, Craig, you may also end up doing some writing in the church periodical. I would suggest that that is no time for advocating it either. I think that fomenting division, or polarizing the church is wrong. If the editor thinks that the denomination would benefit from an expose on the issue, having both sides present their case, I would refuse if I were you. I strongly believe that the truth itself will show us the way and the time. I would follow carefully what Fred and Patrick outlined, and be wary of what Wayne described as the preferred method of many. It takes different forms, but works the same way in most cases.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Why in the world would anyone want to change the WCF?