brianeschen
Puritan Board Junior
My main question: Is the Westminster a consensus document?
Background for this question: I was reading an article written by J. V. Fesko in the Westminster Theological Journal [WTJ 63 (2001) 235-49] entitled "The Days of Creation and Confessional Subscription in the OPC." In this article the author makes the argument that the Westminster Assembly was purposefully imprecise in its formulation of certain doctrines so as to include all strands of Reformed theology. Examples he gave of doctrines permitted by the standards included 1) Amyraldianism, 2) Denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience, 3) Supralapsarian & Infralapsarian, 4) Theonomy & anti Theonomy and 5) The interpretation of the meaning of "in the space of six days" allowing for ordinary and non ordinary days.
Quote from the article:
Are the Westminster Standards a consensus document as described by Pastor Fesko? If so, to what degree? How do we determine what the divines were being intentionally vague about?
I appreciate any help in understanding this issue.
Background for this question: I was reading an article written by J. V. Fesko in the Westminster Theological Journal [WTJ 63 (2001) 235-49] entitled "The Days of Creation and Confessional Subscription in the OPC." In this article the author makes the argument that the Westminster Assembly was purposefully imprecise in its formulation of certain doctrines so as to include all strands of Reformed theology. Examples he gave of doctrines permitted by the standards included 1) Amyraldianism, 2) Denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience, 3) Supralapsarian & Infralapsarian, 4) Theonomy & anti Theonomy and 5) The interpretation of the meaning of "in the space of six days" allowing for ordinary and non ordinary days.
Quote from the article:
If the OPC adopts a twenty-four-hour view to the exclusion of all other views, then the OPC will begin to turn the Confession into the very thing that it never was intended to be—the confession of one particular strand of Reformed theology rather than a consensus document. On the days of creation, those in favor of the twenty-four-hour view might succeed. If they do, the question we will then face is, Which strand of Reformed theology will eventually triumph? The supra- or infralapsarians, the theonomists or non-theonomists, the classical apologetes or the presuppositionalists, the pre-, a-, or postmillenialists, hymn singers or exclusive psalmists, redemptive-historical or traditional preachers?
Are the Westminster Standards a consensus document as described by Pastor Fesko? If so, to what degree? How do we determine what the divines were being intentionally vague about?
I appreciate any help in understanding this issue.