In Which Way Do You Subscribe to Your Confession?

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I believe that *every* generation should hold up the confessions (and any other man-made documents) to the light of Scripture, to see whether or not they are correct.

OK. I agree. But after I have done that, if I am speaking with Matt about justification, why would it be wrong to cite the summary on the subject from the confession?

There is nothing wrong with that at all. I even do things like that.

I'm just specifically talking about times that disputes arise between Presbyterians. For example, what if you and Matt disagree on some minor point regarding justification? At that particular point, I don't think it would do either of you much good to quote the confession again. Instead, you each should present your Scriptural support for your respective views.

But I agree with you: Most of the time, there is nothing wrong at all with quoting the confession among fellow Reformed people. I just had doctrinal *disputes* in mind. . . . not doctrinal discussion in general.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Adherence to the WCF is a test of orthodoxy for Presbyterians.

I don't quite agree. Certainly it *contains* a lot of doctrines that Presbyterians use as tests for orthodoxy. But a huge number of Presbyterians take exceptions to various parts of the confession.

Do all Presbyterians sing Psalms exclusively?

Do all Presbyterians believe that historical study adds *nothing* to a proper understanding of Scripture?

Do all Presbyterians believe that the pope is the antichrist?

Is a person "unorthodox" if he disagrees with the WCF on these 3 counts?


Especially when commonly disputed issues are being discussed, I think it is a shame to hide behind any confession. Even *confessional* people disagree with various points of the confessions. Otherwise, there would be no partial-preterists on this board. Neither would there be anybody on this board who sings anything other than Psalms.

When a doctrine is under dispute, we need to turn to the Scriptures themselves. . . . especially with often-disputed issues within Presbyterianism.

Joseph,

You have just accurately described why Presbyterianism is in a complete state of chaos, why it is almost impossible to discipline anyone for doctrinal heresy, and why instead of asking, "I have a member that is moving to X. What is the local PCA (or OPC or URCNA) church there?" We have to ask, "what is the PCA (or OPC or URCNA) church there really like?" Do they believe in the RPW? Do they let women lead worship? Where do they stand on FV? Are they antinomian? etc., etc. etc...

We need to remember that the WCF is a consensus document, that witnesses to a generic Calvinism. It is intended to unify.

Talk to Sinclair Ferguson about this when you are at WTS-Dallas.

[Edited on 5/17/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
There are, broadly, two historic approaches to subscription, both denominated with Latin terms, Quia (because) and Quatenus (so far as).

The Dutch Reformed (with most of the European Reformed churches) have subscribed (the metaphor is of one writing one's name under a document, as personal, hearty, affirmation, therefore we subscribe a confession, we do not subscribe to it) the Belgic or French/Gallic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort BECUASE (quia) they are biblical. If they can be shown to be unbiblical in the courts of the churches, then the standards must be revised.

Yes, in most of these churches, members are required (as in Oceanside URC) to subscribe the Three Forms as a condition of membership.

They summarize our understanding of Scripture. Do we have to re-think all our theology from the ground up in every generation? Our faith needs to be re-expressed in every generation, but re-worked?

rsc

rsc

As a war-torn, refugee from the Evangelly-fisheries...I can't begin to express the depth of gratitude and relief it has been subscribing to these confessions - upheld by the URC.

Thank God, we don't have to re-work our theology in every generation....

Thank God for teachers who devote themselves to really holding to such precious and beloved confessions --- they are fine summaries of Holy Scripture.

Robin

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Really? 15 people have voted so far, and 12 of them (80%) side with me.

Really? Every time I have looked at the poll there have been zero responses. I guess I am having technical difficulties.

No, I don't. As I already said, choice #1 was for the WCF alone, but choice #2 was for the WCF plus the Bible. I did not leave the WCF out of either choice.

I disagree. You can see your meaning because you wrote the poll. I am interpreting what you wrote and don't see it as clearly. But I can live with your explanation.

That's cute, but it ignores two problems:

1) First, if a person believes that the WCF is "a faithful and accurate representation of the system of doctrine found in the Bible", then there certainly must be Scriptures that support that person's claim. Therefore, the person should be readily able to provide them. If not, then it seems to me that person would be blinding following the confession, which certainly would be wrong.

There is Scriptural support, the Scriptural proofs, and you have been enjoined to look them up, rather than have us articulate something already in print. Economy of time, brother.

 

[fredtgreco]

Kevin,

You can't see poll votes until you vote yourself.

Now go study for History 2!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Really? 15 people have voted so far, and 12 of them (80%) side with me.

Really? Every time I have looked at the poll there have been zero responses. I guess I am having technical difficulties.

No, I don't. As I already said, choice #1 was for the WCF alone, but choice #2 was for the WCF plus the Bible. I did not leave the WCF out of either choice.

I disagree. You can see your meaning because you wrote the poll. I am interpreting what you wrote and don't see it as clearly. But I can live with your explanation.

That's cute, but it ignores two problems:

1) First, if a person believes that the WCF is "a faithful and accurate representation of the system of doctrine found in the Bible", then there certainly must be Scriptures that support that person's claim. Therefore, the person should be readily able to provide them. If not, then it seems to me that person would be blinding following the confession, which certainly would be wrong.

There is Scriptural support, the Scriptural proofs, and you have been enjoined to look them up, rather than have us articulate something already in print. Economy of time, brother.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Do we have to re-think all our theology from the ground up in every generation? Our faith needs to be re-expressed in every generation, but re-worked?

Absolutely!!! As much as possible, I think it is the duty of *every* generation to search the Scriptures in-depth to determine truth.

I believe that *every* generation should hold up the confessions (and any other man-made documents) to the light of Scripture, to see whether or not they are correct. That is what I did with the WCF, and it turns out that I agree with about 98% of what it says.

May God have mercy on any generation that blindly follows any confession, without first comparing it with Scripture itself. The confessions are wonderful. But they should never be canonized.

Tell me, have you really agonized over the doctrine of the Trinity? Have you struggled with the doctrine of the hypostatic union? Or are they "givens" for you?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Kevin,

You can't see poll votes until you vote yourself.

Now go study for History 2!

'

Oooooooh! But I do not wish to vote, since it is a poorly worded poll.

 

[fredtgreco]

Either click "View Results" or pick the middle (blank) option.

Now {putting on Darth Vader voice} because I have done this for you, you shall write my essay tomorrow.... {putting off voice}

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I agree totally that the confessions must be examined by the Scriptures, but who gets to interpret the Scriptures? You? I?

As Reformed folk we read the Scriptures in the CHURCH and with the CHURCH and the Reformed and Presbyterian churches have expressed her interpretation of Scripture on the most essential points in their confessions.

Another way to say this is to say that, unlike most of American evangelicalism, we are not biblicists ("just I and my bible, in the closet").

The Confessions are not incorrigible, but neither are they are not a wax nose.

Whoever spoke re the state of chaos the Reformed world makes a very important point. There are a number of points at which (worship chief among them) where the WCF and the Three Forms have been disregarded blatantly. Many of our churches now conduct services that are closer to those of Charles Finney than they are to John Calvin. This phenomenon can only be ascribed to the poor state of confessional understanding among us.

As to WCF 25.6, the American Presbyterians omitted that article in 1789. There were revisions (re church-state relations) in 1729 in the Adopting Act also.

Confessions must be adopted ecclesiastically and the adopting body has always (since the Scots did it in 1648) had the right to say what they understand by a clause or to omit an article.

Thus, no American Presbyterian denomination (i.e., those descended from the Northern and Southern Presbyterians, excluding the Covenanters and the ARP and those with direct Scots heritage) holds the WCF as it was promulgated in 1647.

This is the significance of the "system" vs. "full" subscription debate. Those who practically reject the Reformed RPW say that they can do it and still hold the "system." Now Hodge defended "system" subscription, but he never certainly meant to allow Pentecostalism to parade as Presbyterianism.

We really do need to recommit ourselves to be more faithful to our confessions and honest in our subscription. If we find that we can no longer subscribe them in good conscience, in the way they were intended to be read and subscribed and in the way they were adopted by one's denomination, then we should say so and perhaps go to a broader church where confessional fidelity and integrity is not a virtue.

On this see Murray's fine essay on subscription (see the bibliography I linked earlier). This was Machen's argument in Christianity and Liberalism.

rsc

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Kevin,

You can't see poll votes until you vote yourself.

Now go study for History 2!

All I need is a 58% baby!!!

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Either click "View Results" or pick the middle (blank) option.

Now {putting on Darth Vader voice} because I have done this for you, you shall write my essay tomorrow.... {putting off voice}

It's done and it's a beaut. I decided to do Calvin, Fox, Wesley, Finney...and pontificate on their approaches to salvation.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Just to chip my ...

My own denomination does adhere to the 1646 WCF. It does have a Scottish connection and John Murray is acknowledged to be the founder of our denomination.

I believe the 1646 WCF to be the finest systematic expression of Biblical theology in credal form yet developed. It is a confession of what the Bible teaches, based completely upon Scripture, with the purpose in mind of uniting the church around those things which must be believed.

Not every point of doctrine contained therein is essential to the faith, but it is all true and, as I said, based solidly upon the Scriptures.

The WCF, like most or all Reformation creeds, upholds the truth that creeds are subordinate to the Scriptures. But they summarize very nicely what the Scriptures teach.

As has been noted, doctrines like the Trinity can be proved from Scripture and are cardinal doctrines, but the Confession articulates the doctrine very succintly and faithfully according to the sense of Scripture.

Although every Christian should be grounded in the Scriptures above all, for they are the word of life, the Confession and Catechisms teach us what we need to know. They help us to confess and understand what we believe the Bible is saying.

I have no problem quoting the Confession in a thread on the Puritan Board. The Scripture proof texts are available for all to read. Sometimes I include them and sometimes I don't.

I liken the Confession to Nehemiah 8.8: So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

I too do not think it necessary for the Church to reinvent the wheel when it comes to summarizing what we believe. On the contrary, I fervently pray that we might return to our Confessional heritage. Let us stand upon the Word of God, as understood and taught by our Confession, and upon the shoulders of those giants who have gone before us in the faith, and may our conversation be thus framed aright. May each generation affirm the orthodoxy of the past (own it as our own) and if possible build on it rather than returning to square one.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Brothers & Sisters,

First, I need to apologize for my poorly worded poll. I personally took great care in wording it, but I obviously failed. Kevin made a great point in response to one of my statements:

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

No, I don't. As I already said, choice #1 was for the WCF alone, but choice #2 was for the WCF plus the Bible. I did not leave the WCF out of either choice.

I disagree. You can see your meaning because you wrote the poll. I am interpreting what you wrote and don't see it as clearly. But I can live with your explanation.

I am fallible. So if some of you guys thought I was making a "Bible only" versus "WCF only" poll, then I need to recognize that I made a mistake. Please forgive me.

On the flip side, I ask that the rest of you be as gracious as Kevin was. He said that he can live with my explanation. In other words, even if you don't like the way I worded the poll, please try to understand that the "Bible versus WCF" false-dichotomy was NOT my intention.

Second, please let me clarify something else: I never meant to imply that it is wrong for someone to quote the confession on this forum. I never said that. I think it is a great idea to quote the confession in conversations (especially on this board), as a clear and succinct summary of important doctrines. I was only suggesting that the confession should not be used as *proof* during discussions in which a particular point of doctrine is under question. I realize that some of you even disagree with me on this particular point. But please don't make me out to have said more than I did. I never meant to imply that we should totally abandon the WCF in our discussions . . . far from it! I love the WCF. I was only questioning a particular usage of it in certain circumstances.

In any case, forgive me for being unclear in various ways. Maybe I should have asked Kevin's or Scott's opinion before posting my poll questions.

Let's stop beating a dead horse . . .

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

 

[Scott Bushey]

Joseph,
Well said. Forgive me if I was curt. I have been stressed out lately for various reasons..........

Whatever the case, I believe everything that needed to be said in regards to this thread has been said. Lets move on.........



Thread closed; gone fishin!