How do you view the confessions?

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by cultureshock
I am at the stage of questioning, and trying to understand issues related to church confession, and what implications it will have for subscription. I am not settled, but I am looking to be persuaded. So, here's my question: Is it perhaps dangerous to limit the authorial intent of the confessions (or any document) to what the authors might have reasonably believed?

For example, when the creation days issue comes up, it is often argued that the "framework" view was not reasonably within the assembly's horizon of understanding, and thus, it could not be allowed for by authorial intent. In other words, the assembly had never heard of the "framework" view, so it is definitely not accomodated by the language of WCF. Now, I am not settled either for against the framework position yet--I have not even read the position yet. So, without getting into the merits and demerits of that position, is it possible that a confession written before a particular position came out can still allow for that position?

The problem with the creation issue, is that the divines were specific on that issue. If they simply said "the work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of His power, [snip] and all very good" then there would be no dispute. The Framework view could be squeezed in because the Divines did not make it a confessional matter. But "in the space of six days" changes everything. Just like imputation is specific. If you subscribe to the WCF you must believe in imputation, as the Divines defined it. No wiggle room there at all. They laid out the basic tenets from which to build. any new ideas or views to come later must not compromise those basic tenets. Remember, the WCF was a consensus document. There were many disagreements over several issues, but these statments in the WCF were the agreed basics of the Reformed faith.

But there is still room for development within the bounds of the Confession, building on what they accomplished. Think of how further detailed covenant theology has become since Westminster, while staying in bounds. Another example, notice that there is not any one particular millenial view adopted in the Confession, only the eschatology basics (second coming, final judgment, etc) are made a matter of subscription. So pre-, a-, and postmil can all squeeze in. And I think eschatology has become much richer because of those interactions over the centuries. Again, these are just some examples. The Divines, for the most part, knew when to draw the line on essentials and when to allow some freedom of opinion and development. And furthermore, the Divines allowed for further amending should they be found in error. The church just needs to have the integrity to publically admit they are moving the boundary markers of their fathers and amend the Confession.

 

[JohnV]

I agree with Patrick. I would add this to it, though. The different views within the givens of eschatology, namely the pre, a, and post - mil views, do not change anything about what the Confessions say must be believed from Scripture concerning eschatology. They are all within the Confessional boundary. But when it comes to different views on the creation it is a different matter. Different views on creation necessarily entail a denial of what is said in the Confesssions concerning what the Scriptures reveal about the creation. "In the space of six days" is called into question, and alternative views are suggested. It is claimed that "in the space of six days" is a subjective interpretation, and therefore other subjective interpretations are just as likely. It comes down to what the particular reader prefers. So personal preferences take priority over accepted doctrine. But what is necessarily entailed is a denial of "in the space of six days."

I don't mind people taking different views in an honest way. But people using their office to write or speak these views is a breaking of covenant. I mean, then need to say something to someone so as to be open about their views, and to let their overseers know about them; but nowadays people are becoming famous for their different views, displaying and defending them not only so all can see, but making them into causes, of which they are often leaders. And that's making use of the offices that is not part of the calling of the Church.

They teach these things, and the Church is usually the last one to deal with it instead of the first one. It is not before new views are preached that the Church decides on them, but after. That is not very responsible of these leaders.

So it is not so much the views themselves as it is the undermining of Church authority that takes place. The alternative views on creation are bad enough, because they necessarily entail a denial of what the Confessions say the Scriptures say. But the use of office in the matter is a serious concern too, and this concern also involves matters that include more acceptable views, such as the different millennial views. They are voluntary views, not necessary ones; yet some like to hang entire theologies upon their particular view, and then preach that view. And this, then, necessarily means that they are preaching a different theology; because whereas Reformed theology is not changed by voluntary views, they preach these views so as they are determinitive for theology itself: their voluntary views do change theology. And because they are voluntary, personal views, they do not really hold to Sola Scriptura, because they make the assumption that their own personal views are just as Biblical as the Church-defined articles of faith. They personally make the conviction that their own views plus Scripture makes for necessary truth. But the Reformed conviction is that Scripture plus Scripture only makes for necessary truth.

Thus: proposition A, and proposition B, makes proposition C necessary.

Think of the Bible saying: that God is one ( proposition A ); that God is three distinct persons ( proposition B ); that therefore God is Trinity ( proposition C. ) Proposition C is not in the Bible, but God says A is true and God says B is true, and we therefore do not have a choice about C.

But what men are doing is putting their own propositions, without sufficient and clear Biblical warrant, in as one of the propositions and saying that their proposition C is necessary. This denies Sola Scriptura. This is not sticking with the Confessions as confessions of the Church. Each and every article is dependent upon Scripture alone, nothing else. If one article isn't Sola Scriptura then that article needs to be questioned; it cannot be part of the Confessions unless it is clearly taught in Scripture.

But proponents of different the different creation views are not saying that the "in the space of six days" needs to be thrown out, they're just offering optional confessional statements, a liberty of doctrine the Church does not have. It only has that liberty as to rule of the body, not as to doctrine. For we believe in Sola Scriptura.

Anyways, thanks for letting me ramble on. I'm just stating my view of the Confessions, how I believe them and what I hold to with conviction.

 

[cultureshock]

Ok, so now I have read the relevant section from the minutes of the OPC's 71st GA, and I have more questions.

Whoever prepared the report has argued that what is at stake in the inclusion of the phrase "in the space of six days" does not entail the length of the days.

The argument goes like this: An overwhelming majority of the Assembly held to 24 hour days. A number of them used this language of "24 hour days" in their own personal writings, demonstrating that such language was available for use in the confession, if the framers had seen fit. Yet, even though the language was available to specify length of the days as 24 hours, they chose not to.

Plus, one member of the Assembly, Lightfoot, believed that the first three days were each 36 hours, rather than 24. Lightfoot still signed on to the confession, presumably in good conscience.

Also, the report mentioned some names from early OPC history, most notably, J. G. Machen himself, who held to views different from the 24 hour view. Machen held to the day-age view, yet he was happy to adopt the WCF for the new church he was founding.

To those of you who take a strict stand against this kind of reasoning, I ask, how do you answer it?

For now, I am not decided, but my inclination is to say that "in the space of six days" does not specify precisely how long the days were. I am not motivated by science to this position; I simply don't believe the biblical data is that specific, especially since the creation days were anything but ordinary, in at least all other respects. At this point, I feel compelled to uphold six, sequential, successive days of creation, with the understanding that "day" may or may not have been of ordinary length, but I am still feeling my way around the debates.

Brian

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I for one am sorry the Westminster Divines lacked the superhuman prescience to know they should have adopted wording on creation days that would have addressed the issues facing us in our day. Synods as a rule generally don't deal with things that they do not know will be issues.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by NaphtaliPress]

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by cultureshock
Ok, so now I have read the relevant section from the minutes of the OPC's 71st GA, and I have more questions.

Whoever prepared the report has argued that what is at stake in the inclusion of the phrase "in the space of six days" does not entail the length of the days.

The argument goes like this: An overwhelming majority of the Assembly held to 24 hour days. A number of them used this language of "24 hour days" in their own personal writings, demonstrating that such language was available for use in the confession, if the framers had seen fit. Yet, even though the language was available to specify length of the days as 24 hours, they chose not to.

Plus, one member of the Assembly, Lightfoot, believed that the first three days were each 36 hours, rather than 24. Lightfoot still signed on to the confession, presumably in good conscience.

Also, the report mentioned some names from early OPC history, most notably, J. G. Machen himself, who held to views different from the 24 hour view. Machen held to the day-age view, yet he was happy to adopt the WCF for the new church he was founding.

To those of you who take a strict stand against this kind of reasoning, I ask, how do you answer it?

For now, I am not decided, but my inclination is to say that "in the space of six days" does not specify precisely how long the days were. I am not motivated by science to this position; I simply don't believe the biblical data is that specific, especially since the creation days were anything but ordinary, in at least all other respects. At this point, I feel compelled to uphold six, sequential, successive days of creation, with the understanding that "day" may or may not have been of ordinary length, but I am still feeling my way around the debates.

Brian

Brian:

You ask how I would answer, and I would like to do so.

The Confessions are a summary of what the Bible teaches, no more than that. It does not add anything from man, nothing. To say that the days were 24 hours long is to assume something the Bible does not say it specifically, and for which we have no necessary preconditions. It is an assumption on man's part, and therefore does not belong in the Confessions. Most of the men may have had opinions, and even very good ones, but the Confessions were not about their opinions, even the good ones. It was about what the Bible says.

So the phrase, "in the space of six days" is a Biblically necessary one. It is in the Bible. There are three reasons for it: it is the plain reading of Scripture; there is a God-given reference between the relationship of the days of creation and the regular days of the week after creation, in the Decalogue; and it does not violate common sense. Thus the phrase must be in the Confessions.

Now that does not mean that there is not lattitude about that phrase. There is. But that liberty of conscience should not change the substance of what is in the Confessions. I don't know if Machen believed in the Day-Age theory. Maybe he did. But it seems, then, that his view of it did not do two things: it did not change what the Confessions said the Bible says; and it did not become a doctrine itself. In other words, he may have had his opinion, but it took a back seat to the church's standards. He did not see them as on the same level, much less his own opinions taking priority.

As I have said before, these views taken to their logical end, tend to deny the phrase "in the space of six days." They do so in two ways: they make out of these words a context that reduces the words to meaninglessness, so that six days may mean anything that fits the theory; and they put this phrase on the same level as their own opinions, as if the Westminster Assembly was moved to include it because of their own opinions instead of Biblical necessity.

The question at hand is not what men's opinions are but what God meant. We can't just go and make theories willy nilly. And we certainly can't place theories on the level of a church confessional covenant. If the men of Westminster had put their own opinions in the Confession instead of staying strictly with what the Bible taught then the whole of the Assembly's work is suspect. It is supposed to have authority because Christ has said that He will lead His Church through the agency of men, led by the Spirit. Therefore we look for "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...", not "it seemed good to us...." Notice that the two are used in Acts 15; the latter referring to the rule of the body, in sending chosen men with the message, and the former referring to the decision concerning doctrine.

The Confessions is a statement of doctrine, a covenant or bond of faith which unites the Church under the Word. It does not bind men to men's opinions.

Some men may have their opinions about some things about which the Bible leaves certain liberties, but they are to be opinions, not doctrine. As such, they are not important to the church. Men who teach and preach are to teach and preach what the Bible teaches. They may have their opinions about the creation days, but their office confines them to upholding "in the space of six days" so as to allow all men the same liberty that they have, but to teach what the Bible says. So it is clearly not part of the offices to be teaching opinions as if they take priority over anyone else's opinions ( which preaching their opinions would do ), but mostly it is not part of the offices to change or give up what the churches have all confessed to. The only way to do so is to call a Synod on the matter, to decide if the Bible teaches differently than is stated in the Confessions, and if so to change the Confessions then.

In summary, the Confessions are about what the Bible teaches, not about what the opinions of the framers of the Confessions were. That was their job, to determine what the Bible says, not to lead a section of Christ's church into a sectarian opinion-driven doctrine. It is the preacher's duty to be convicted of what the Confessions binds him to, not to preach whatever his own convictions may determine. We must hold "in the space of six days" as inviolable unless it can be shown from Scripture or good and necessary inference that it is not Biblical. Men are not holding it as inviolable, but are taking opportunity to raise their own opinions to the level where they are presented as from their offices, and especially from the pulpit where only God's Word is to be taught. This part, then, has nothing to do with creation days, but with the the strictures of office. Breaking either one of these is just as bad; breaking both is most serious.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by cultureshock
Ok, so now I have read the relevant section from the minutes of the OPC's 71st GA, and I have more questions.

Whoever prepared the report has argued that what is at stake in the inclusion of the phrase "in the space of six days" does not entail the length of the days.

The argument goes like this: An overwhelming majority of the Assembly held to 24 hour days. A number of them used this language of "24 hour days" in their own personal writings, demonstrating that such language was available for use in the confession, if the framers had seen fit. Yet, even though the language was available to specify length of the days as 24 hours, they chose not to.

Plus, one member of the Assembly, Lightfoot, believed that the first three days were each 36 hours, rather than 24. Lightfoot still signed on to the confession, presumably in good conscience.

I would love to see the evidence regarding Lightfoot. He would be the only Westminster divine thus far who didn't hold the natural day view as far as the evidence goes.

Also, the report mentioned some names from early OPC history, most notably, J. G. Machen himself, who held to views different from the 24 hour view. Machen held to the day-age view, yet he was happy to adopt the WCF for the new church he was founding.

To those of you who take a strict stand against this kind of reasoning, I ask, how do you answer it?

As much as I love Machen (and Warfield and Hodge too) I think they simply were inconsistent here on creation (Warfield especially). Plus they were inheriting the tradition that Wayne mentioned above of reinterpreting the Confession over time. They would not be so flexible with the language of justification. With the creation issue perhaps they thought it wasn't important because of the challenges they were facing in their day in defending the gospel against the liberals. I don't think we can be so loose with our words these days though. If we are not clear in all that we say, then we open the door for people wishing to spread heresy with othodox "language." It also makes more work for us when people begin asking legitmate questions like "so even though your Confession says 6 days, your church really doesn't believe 6 days..." etc. If the Church wants to admit other views strictly upon exegetical conerns and not out of compromise to the atheistic presppositions of modern science, then fine. Simply amend the Confession. Edit "in the space of six days" out! Why is this so difficult? Of course I'm young and ignorant, perhaps a little idealistic still, but this seems to me to make better sense than redefining things and causing confusion.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
I for one am sorry the Westminster Divines lacked the superhuman prescience to know they should have adopted wording on creation days that would have addressed the issues facing us in our day. Synods as a rule generally don't deal with things that they do not know will be issues.

I think the Westminster Divines were rather inciteful. All the heresies we face today, they faced in some form or another. They had their charasmatics (Quakers, anabaptists), New Perspective on Paul (Arminians), wacky pop eschatology (5 monarchy men), easy believism (Anglicanism) etc. The WCF and even the 3FU too, both answer all of these heresies rather adequately. It's just a matter of application to our time.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm not knocking the Divines by any stretch; being a tiny bit sarcastic I guess.

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
I for one am sorry the Westminster Divines lacked the superhuman prescience to know they should have adopted wording on creation days that would have addressed the issues facing us in our day. Synods as a rule generally don't deal with things that they do not know will be issues.

I think the Westminster Divines were rather inciteful. All the heresies we face today, they faced in some form or another. They had their charasmatics (Quakers, anabaptists), New Perspective on Paul (Arminians), wacky pop eschatology (5 monarchy men), easy believism (Anglicanism) etc. The WCF and even the 3FU too, both answer all of these heresies rather adequately. It's just a matter of application to our time.

 

[cultureshock]

The Creation Report can be found at: http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

I have to admit that I'm not happy with the "animus imponentis" approach that this report takes. I do think that amendation would be better than "animus imponentis", if the direction the OPC is going is truly contrary to the WCF.

Another article I find interesting is: http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html. The writers here argue that "in the space of six days" is meant to highlight a creation process, that extended in time, in contrast to an instantaneous view of creation (like Augustine's).

I agree that the confession should not become a wax nose, and that it is important to maintain authorial intent as the right understanding of the confession. Yet, we have to admit that the confession is interpreted, and thus it needs to be interpreted carefully. I would suggest, it is not enough to simply pound our fist on the table and repeat "day means day." So, I'm trying to come at it from a wider angle and ask, what did the framers mean by "day"? Did they mean to nail it down to a 24 hour day only, or could it possibly include a day of unspecified length? If the Lightfoot evidence holds true, then, perhaps their intent in using "day" was somewhat general and purposely ambiguous. This is not the same as wax nose interpretation, in my opinion.

My purpose in bringing up the opinion of Lightfoot had to do with trying to discern the Assembly's authorial intention, not with replacing the teaching of Scripture with a man's opinion. I don't mean to imply that the doctrine of creation is a matter of liberty, as if there is no true Scriptural teaching on it, but only to recognize that there are divergent views out there, and perhaps the WCF is okay with that (which depends on other arguments out there).

And Machen's opinion does strike home a bit, since a few of us here are OPC. If Machen was wrong, then is it okay to join a church that succumbed to revisionism from the very beginning? I'm just saying that a historical precedent was established in the OPC, from the very beginning, and so the creation report of 2004 comes as no surprise, really.

At this point, I think my position would be identified as the "day of unspecified length" view. I am purposely non-committal as to fixing down the length of the days. I do think there were six sequential days, but, because those days were anything but ordinary, three of which had no sun, why should I assume that I can know? Part of my reluctance to commit is also that I don't have enough Hebrew under my belt to understand all of the linguistic issues involved.

Brian

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by cultureshock]

 

[JohnV]

2Co 4

1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.
2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.
4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.
8 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair;
9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed;
10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.
11 For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.
12 So death is at work in us, but life in you.
13 Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, "I believed, and so I spoke," we also believe, and so we also speak,
14 knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.
15 For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.
16 So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day.
17 For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison,
18 as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.

We seem to love tampering with God's Word, justifying our own opinions by it. Perhaps it is not so much of a coincidence that this passage speaks both of the Confession ( vs. 2 ) and the creation ( vs. 6. ) Whether it is or not, our aim ought to be to evict our opinions, exchanging them with truths from God's Word, rather than trying to fit them in with God's Word. The Word bears witness to "in the space of six days", but not to my personal opinions besides that. So no matter how educated I might be about things concerning creation, I have God's testimony that I may not equivocate on for the sake of my opinions. No matter what others may think about the Assembly's deliberations, I believe that their intent was also not to tamper with the Word by indulging their own opinions, but in clearly stating only what the Bible says, and declaring them as inviolable.

There still has not been demonstrated a clear problem with the fourth day. The fact that the first day was counted a full three days before the sun came to be is not a problem to anyone who has designed, manufactured, and finished a project, a start-to-finish project. One has in mind the last thing to be put in place already, while he is doing the very first thing in the project. The sun coming to be on the fourth day is not a theoretical or practical problem to the days of creation. Thus, if the alternative views on creation are an attempt to answer this so-called problem of the creation days, they are striving after wind, because there really is no problem at all.

But even so, why should our theories make so much conversation in the church? They are unimportant as to doctrine, not impacting them at all. Or that is how it should be. If they do impact doctrine then there is something dreadfully wrong.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

In Hetherington's History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, he said that the church cannot possibly fulfill its mission without a confession. Its impossible to share what you can't confess. Confessions, then, of Gospel content, are necessary to understand the message.