Too much reliance on the WCF?? Full Conscription??

[Covenant Joel]

Sometimes it seems like many people on this board just quote the Confession as an answer to questions rather than Scripture. I am not saying that I disagree with the confession, or that it is not profitable to see what it has to say, but it sometimes seems to me that it is relied upon too much.

Along with this, I am struggling to understand how it is possible to hold to a completely full forced conscription to the WCF. It seems that to do such makes it as high or higher than Scripture.

Joel

 

[LawrenceU]

Joel,
That is an excellent question and one that truly requires thought. I, too, am deeply troubled when the WCF, LBCF, 39 Arts., etc. are cited as support for belief. They are great documents, but they are fallible. The Scripture and it alone is the standard established by God by which men will be judged. In the past we've had some very interesting debates on this topic which some of us called 'Theological Traditionalism'. The debate at times became fairly, how shall we say? 'Warm'.

As a credobaptist I fall in line most closely with the 1646 LBC. Yet, I will never hold it as a standard. The Bible is my standard. Alignment with a confession can be useful, but in the end a confession is still a manly interpretation of divine writ. It is never more and it is fallible.

 

[Michael]

I don't think anyone here would place the WCF above Scripture under any circumstances (at least I hope not). As to why so many posts include quotes from the WCF, well it's because it is just that--a confession of what we faithfully believe Scripture to reveal.

I do sympathize with you, Joel, in your caution about a full forced subscription. When my wife and I first met with the elders of my church about membership they asked me if I had any reservations. I brought up the reliance on the WCF. They reassured me that the WCF was not viewed as the Word of God or infallible. It is available for revision should any error be found. Scripture is not. This helped settle the issue for me. Over time, as I have studied more, I realize that the WCF is a blessing of devotion to the Word of God. I have found nothing in it's content to unsettle my faith. Quite the contrary, it has solidified my belief exponentially.

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by Ezekiel16]

 

[fredtgreco]

Joel,

First of all the word I think you are looking for is "subscription" unless you want to be drafted into the army!

Secondly, the use of the Confessions is as they are in line with the Scriptures. There are several main lines of thought here:

1. I don't want to have to re-systematize what I believe the Bible teaches in a form that is less persuasive, less complete and not as comprehensive. That is, I believe that I am not as smart or as agood an exegete as the drafters of the Confession.

2. Everyone does this all the time. It is merely a matter of degree. No one treats the Unitarian in a "Christian" discussion as having an equally valid point as a Trinitarian.

3. In some instances, Creeds or Confessions are necessary to prevent heretics from hiding behind the words of Scripture (or pouring their own meaning into such words). The classic example of this is the Nicene Creed.

 

[Michael]

Where is Andrew when you need him? :bigsmile:

 

[Covenant Joel]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Joel,

First of all the word I think you are looking for is "subscription" unless you want to be drafted into the army!

Hehe....yes., *cough/lie*well, just making sure everybody's on their toes*/cough/lie*

I thought something sounded funny about that. Thanks for pointing it out. As is apparent, I'm not super familiar with the whole debate. These are just my observations based on what I have seen so far.

Secondly, the use of the Confessions is as they are in line with the Scriptures. There are several main lines of thought here:

1. I don't want to have to re-systematize what I believe the Bible teaches in a form that is less persuasive, less complete and not as comprehensive. That is, I believe that I am not as smart or as agood an exegete as the drafters of the Confession.

2. Everyone does this all the time. It is merely a matter of degree. No one treats the Unitarian in a "Christian" discussion as having an equally valid point as a Trinitarian.

3. In some instances, Creeds or Confessions are necessary to prevent heretics from hiding behind the words of Scripture (or pouring their own meaning into such words). The classic example of this is the Nicene Creed.

I'm not arguing against having a Confession. Actually, I'm not sure that I'm arguing for anything in particular. I just don't see how there can be forced con...subscription to a Confession that deals with things that are not essentials of the faith...but on the other hand, I would not want any dispensationals in the Presbyterian Church, so where do you draw the line?

Joel

 

[Michael]

I can't imagine finding any Presbyterians or otherwise who feel that the WCF is "forced" upon them. It's a confession of faith, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[RamistThomist]

2 Thessalonians 2:15

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word, or by our letter."

Now the Romanist claims that this teaches oral tradition and other nonsense. I see Paul having the Thessalonians believe apostolic truth that is consistent with Scripture, although not written down as such.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

see:
The Practice of Confessional Subscription
by David W. Hall (Editor)

http://tinyurl.com/5cg9h

{URL edited to prevent window stretch - please consider using TinyUrls -FTG}

[Edited on 3/14/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[lwadkins]

Understanding what your church believes before you join is a real blessing. Churches who truly subscribe to the WCF have, through it, stated a summary of what they believe. I appricate that it is comprehensive as many churches today have very brief and uninformative statements of faith that tell you nothing of what the church actually believes. I think that the WCF has stood the test of time and much scrutiny and has proved itself to be a valid and trustworthy (biblical) summary of what God's word tells us. Therefore I personally was happy to subscribe as it summed up what I believed the bible taught.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I think it would be helpful for anyone (anyone at all) to take up some time on defining exactly what is "fallible" in those documents. If its wrong, we ought ot get it out of there.

 

[Bryan]

Originally posted by webmaster
I think it would be helpful for anyone (anyone at all) to take up some time on defining exactly what is "fallible" in those documents. If its wrong, we ought ot get it out of there.

Does not fallible mean the possibility of error? If that is the case then the whole confession is fallible. Wether there are errors or not is a seperate question. Everyone should admit the Confession(s) are fallible, and that the Bible is the only infallible document, so errors are possible in the confession(s) but that doesn't mean that there are.

Bryan
SDG

 

[Covenant Joel]

Originally posted by Ezekiel16
I can't imagine finding any Presbyterians or otherwise who feel that the WCF is "forced" upon them. It's a confession of faith, nothing more, nothing less.

I wasn't suggesting that there were those who felt like that. But as I understand the complete subscription position, it would mean that a church officer could not take exception to it at any point. I would subscribe to the Confession (although at this point I am still working through infant baptism), but I don't think that therefore I can not take exception to it at any point. If that position is taken, then it does not seem that anyone can even question the accuracy of its representation of Scripture, because to question any point would be to say I don't necessarily believe it, and would then compel that person to step down. That seems to place the WCF on the level of Scripture, which I do not think it is.

Joel

Joel

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Ezekiel16
Where is Andrew when you need him? :bigsmile:

To quote from the WCF, Chap. I:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

 

[kceaster]

I would also like to remind everyone of the logical conclusion of certain lines of thought.

If you say that confessions are fallible, you must include your own. Everyone who has believed the Bible's words are true has a confession to make. The authors of the WCF and various other confessions, were making a single common confession. This is what we believe the Bible teaches. Certainly, these confessions do not equal the Bible in places they are untrue, which is why they are fallible and the Bible is not. But when the position is taken that confessions are fallible, the person making such a statement also places his own confession into this as well.

Individual confessions are not warranted from Scripture. The writer of Hebrews does not encourage us to hold fast to your confession, but hold fast to our confession. I am in no way saying that the writer had the WCF in mind when he wrote these words, but the concept should be clear. It is our confession, it is what we believe collectively. What we believe, then, becomes a gloss, not only for our fathers, but for our children. What do we learn? We learn our confession. What do we teach? We teach our confession.

The fallacy of believing that holding to confessions is more impure than holding to no confession at all has the logical conclusion of placing one's own confession above all else. There is no one man who has infallibly interpreted Scripture. Therefore, the impurity of the confession is more with an individual, than it is with a corporate expression of the body of Christ. Just because we have examples of profane and blasphemous confessions, does not mean that all confessions are not to be trusted.

Additionally, where are we told to be individual in the body of Christ? Where are we told to form our own opinion? Where are we told that the Spirit speaks and illumines our individual efforts above the corporate efforts? Yes, the Bereans did search for themselves, but we are mistaken if we think that each one went to his own house and made his own discoveries. The Christian faith is not about the individual. God has a people. God does not have persons.

Summary: Everyone has a confession. If the WCF and LBCF and the others are fallible, how much more so must the confession be of the individual who picks and chooses. If the councils are fallible, how much more so must be the individual who does not agree with them. (I am speaking of the ecumenical ones, not heretical.) We know that here, we see through a glass, dimly. We know we are fallible. We know that we err in several places. We know that the whole truth of God resides in the Scriptures. And, by faith, we have produced for us, a gloss of those truths. We do not believe in the gloss. We believe that the gloss is as faithful as it can be to that which we truly believe and place our faith in - The Holy Scriptures.

Everyone has a confession. I choose to believe in a common one, rather than one of my making, even where I do not understand.

In Christ,

KC

 

[lwadkins]

Good logical points KC. Thanks for posting them.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by Covenant Joel
Sometimes it seems like many people on this board just quote the Confession as an answer to questions rather than Scripture. I am not saying that I disagree with the confession, or that it is not profitable to see what it has to say, but it sometimes seems to me that it is relied upon too much.

Along with this, I am struggling to understand how it is possible to hold to a completely full forced conscription to the WCF. It seems that to do such makes it as high or higher than Scripture.

Joel

If you notice Joels concern, it comes with an honest humble spirit. WHen I read it I do not believe he is saying that we should throw them out. In some of the responses here, joels question/comment is proven.

The Scots Confession od 1560 handle's this extremely well:

"So far then as the council confirms its decrees by the plain Word of God, so far do we reverence and embrace them. But if men, under the name of a council, pretend to forge for us new articles of faith, or to make decisions contrary to the Word of God, then we must utterly deny them as the doctrine of devils, drawing our souls from the voice of the one God to follow the doctrines of men. The reason why the general councils met was not to make any permanent law which God had not made before, nor yet to form new articles for our belief, nor to give the Word of God authority; . . . but the reason for councils, at least of those what deserve the name, was partly to refute heresies, and to give public confession of their faith to the generations following, which they did by the authority of God's written Word, and not by any opinion or prerogative that they could not err by reason of their numbers. This, we judge, was the primary reason for general councils. The second was that good policy and order shou ld be constituted and observed in the Kirk [church] where, as in the house of God, it becomes all things to be done decently and in order."
The Scots Confession explains why, from Christ before Pilate to the present day, creeds and confessions have been important to the mission and government of the church. They are standards fallible, not absolute, for a well-ordered proclamation of the faith we embrace and defend.

Here is another statement I found:

While Scripture is inerrant and normative because it's ultimate author -- God -- is infallible, confessions are the products of fallible men and thus it is entirely possible that they contain error. It should not be assumed that because these men were capable of erring that they necessarily did, however. It is possible, for instance, that the Westminster Confession is an entirely accurate (if not exhaustive) reflection of the doctrine contained in Scripture. But regardless of whether confessions do or do not contain error, only the Holy Scriptures are normative and inspired, and as such confessions must never be viewed as having anything other than a subordinate or secondary role.



The problem arises when such happens:

WHen a person is asked "What do you believe about such and such?"

"I believe what the WCF believes"

"What does the WCF believe?"

"What I believe"


That is faith by proxy and a terrible issue within the body of the church. Not only with the WCF but with all. Use creeds and confessions for what they are intended for, and that is to produce a unity of beliefs. The body is communal as well as individual. But the emphasis should be on the communal aspect of believers.


In His Grace

Joseph

 

[AdamM]

Joel, I think the reason you find a reliance on the confessions around PB is that most people here are either officers or thoughtful members of confessional churches. Since all officers in these churches subscribe to the various standards, the doctrine contained in those standards ought to be our starting point and shouldn't need to be re-debated. After all, when people subscribed to those standards they did agree that the standards accurately reflected the teaching of scriptures and are under vows to reveal any changes in thought to the session or presbytery. Of course as was pointed out earlier in this thread, the standards do not ever rise above or to the same level of scripture, but in so far as they teach accurately about scripture, they carry authority of the scripture that underlies them.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by The Lamb
The problem arises when such happens:

WHen a person is asked "What do you believe about such and such?"

"I believe what the WCF believes"

"What does the WCF believe?"

"What I believe"

I've personally never encountered a person who thinks or talks this way. Anyone who holds to the Westminster Confession -- specifically emphasizing the first chapter on God's Word -- makes a clear confession that the WCF is subordinate to the Scriptures. At the same time, they are saying that the Confession systematically teaches the doctrines of Scripture that are necessary for salvation and unity among the brethren in faith, worship and practice. Not every point addressed in the Confession is equally important, but they form a united testimony as to what Scripture teaches in areas that are most important for unity. The Confessions quoted in this thread agree and those who adhere to them agree that Scripture is the highest authority on all subjects, but the Confessions are a summary of what the Scriptures teach. Their purpose to promote unity based on truth and also to filter out error. The WCF in particular has stood the test of time.

My personal concern about the way the WCF is treated in modern Presbyterian churches is that too little regard is had for this venerable Confession. It was amended in 1787 to its detriment by most American Presbyterian churches, and there is no impediment to taking exceptions in the majority of churches of which I am aware. Even the RPCNA has a testimony that flatly contradicts the Confession in places. The denominations and congregations which adhere to the original Confession without exceptions are few and far between. Loose confessional subscription is by far the norm. So the concern about too much emphasis on the Confession is diametrically opposed to the experience with which I am acquainted in the Presbyterian world.

Exception-taking to the Confession is, in my view, like saying the dike won't burst if we allow a few holes to develop here and there. I understand people don't often agree on a systematic teaching of the Scriptures, but allowing exceptions to faith, worship and practice as taught by the WCF, promotes individual "conscience" at the expense of unity (and truth, in my view). The history of the Presbyterian church in America, In my humble opinion, is a perfect illustration of how spiritual decline follows exception-taking.

If the Westminster Assembly, with all of its varied viewpoints but common commitment to Reformation, could agree on the original Confession, why can't we? It is in my opinion, the best and most accurate (but not exhaustive, as has been noted) summary of Scriptural teaching around, and a heritage that ought to be upheld, and not undermined.

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It was amended in 1787 to its detriment by most American Presbyterian churches, and there is no impediment to taking exceptions in the majority of churches of which I am aware.

And this is a good example. That is why you can find dozens of threads here that deal with the issue of the Civil Magistrate and the underlying Biblical texts. There is disagreement about the modification of the Confession at this point, hence the discussion must be directly Biblical.

For example, I disagree (respectfully) with Andrew on this point, as I believe that the 1787 WCF is a more faithful representation of the teachinng of the Bible that the 1646 (which in NO WAY should be taken as a belittlement or attack on the 1646 WCF)

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It was amended in 1787 to its detriment by most American Presbyterian churches, and there is no impediment to taking exceptions in the majority of churches of which I am aware.

And this is a good example. That is why you can find dozens of threads here that deal with the issue of the Civil Magistrate and the underlying Biblical texts. There is disagreement about the modification of the Confession at this point, hence the discussion must be directly Biblical.

For example, I disagree (respectfully) with Andrew on this point, as I believe that the 1787 WCF is a more faithful representation of the teachinng of the Bible that the 1646 (which in NO WAY should be taken as a belittlement or attack on the 1646 WCF)

I agree Fred. I am a pretty scrict subscriptionist, but I believe that if there was one thing the Westminster Divines didn't have a really good grasp of, was Chrurch-State Releationship. I think that the confession is a marvelous document, should be taken in high regard, and if one thinks he disagrees with it, he better make extra sure and study his position well.

I also find that if anything, the WCF is NOT getting the credit it deserves in the Presbyterian Church today. Many Elders are taking "exceptions" and "scruples" with the Confession. Our assistant Pastor believes it is ok to watch images of Christ! This is riduculous in my opinion (not to mention gross idolotry), but it only shows the state of the reformed church today.

 

[The Lamb]

I've personally never encountered a person who thinks or talks this way.

I was waiting for someone to respond with this. They are out there believe me. Unles every single Presbyterian is a scholar to the teachings of their confessions and creeds. Which I highly doubt.

I have personally done a survey in our Dutch Reformed Congreagation. 30% did not even know the 3 forms of unity. Their names I mean. Let alone what they say

In His grace



Joseph

 

[The Lamb]

I will now go on record, and I can be quoted and burned at the stake if anyone sopleases for this.


I believe the confessions error in regards to the fall of man. Read the following please.. From the HC

Q. 7.

Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?

A.

From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,

Adam and Eve, in Paradise; (a)

hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. (b)
(a) Gen.3; Rom.5:12,18,19. (b) Ps.51:5; Gen.5:3.

From the LBC
2. Our first Parents by this Sin, fell from their (c) original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all; (d) all becoming dead in Sin, and wholly defiled, (e) in all the faculties, and parts, of soul, and body.

3. They being the (f) root, and by Gods appointment, standing in the room, and stead of all mankind; the guilt of the Sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now (g) conceived in Sin, and by nature children (h) of wrath, the servants of Sin, the subjects (i) of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus (k) set them free.


Why eve is mentioned I do not know. It is Adam who sinned for all humanity. In the recording of Genesis, when God curses, He is speaking to the singular male gender only.

Again, Paul reinforces this in ROmans 5.... Eve is never mentioned.

I will get the logs for the fire now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fredtgreco]

Eve is mentioned because Original Sin is twofold:

1. Sin imupted (Romans 5) --> the result of Adam's sin (not Eve's); federal heaship

2. Sin infused --> we are also given a corrupt nature that is passed down through Adam & Eve (natural generation)

Don't get excited to get burned. Do a bit more digging in the Scriptures instead.

 

[kceaster]

Fred...

Would you say that the governmental changes that have taken place across our world have effected a change in how civil government is looked upon? In other words,, their situation obviously differs from ours, weren't they just going on the light that they had?

In Christ,

KC

 

[fredtgreco]

KC,

I think that is part of it. Again, my opinion is not that the WCF divines "missed the boat," but that the American Adopting Act made the Confession better. Providence can aid in that process.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Eve is mentioned because Original Sin is twofold:

1. Sin imupted (Romans 5) --> the result of Adam's sin (not Eve's); federal heaship

2. Sin infused --> we are also given a corrupt nature that is passed down through Adam & Eve (natural generation)

Don't get excited to get burned. Do a bit more digging in the Scriptures instead.

Thanks for not lighting the match yet Fred.

I still believe that eve has no warrant to be mentioned. We did a 4 hour debate on this last week. I am spent from it. TO speak that sin is infused if foreign to Scripture and the reforemd tradition. Just as we never speak of infused righteoussness.

When Adam fell, his sin was imputed to us, NOT infused. To impute means, according to Romans 4:17, calling what is NOT as though it were. When Adam´s sin was imputed to us, God called us ALL sinners, as though we had all sinned.

." Since "made sinners" is paralleled with "made righteous," it must also be referring to imputation. Thus, Paul is saying that we are all made sinners in the sense that we are imputed with Adam's sin.


I have never read in any writing, or scripture where eve has any culpability of our sin nature.

COuld you please provide some for me fred? This is what the RCC teaches also.


In His grace


Joseph

 

[fredtgreco]

Joseph,

You are missing my point here, I think.

I acknowledge (with emphasis) that it is Adam's federal sin that is imputed ot us, and the cause of our sinful condition. Adam's sin is exactly as is we had sinned in the garden ourselves - it is an action imputed to us (cf. Rom 5; 1 Cor 15).

But Original Sin includes more than that. Adam's sin begets sin. It begets personal actual sin (as opposed to federal actual sin) and a sinful nature (corruption).

This is in no way foreign to the Reformed tradition:

WCF 5.3 They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; (Gen. 1:27"“28, Gen. 2:16"“17, Acts 17:26, Rom. 5:12,15"“19, 1 Cor. 15:21"“22,45,49) and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (Ps. 51:5, Gen. 5:3, Job 14:4, Job 15:14)

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (Rom. 5:6, Rom. 8:7, Rom. 7:18, Col. 1:21) and wholly inclined to all evil, (Gen. 6:5, Gen. 8:21, Rom. 3:10"“12) do proceed all actual transgressions. (James 1:14"“15, Eph. 2:2"“3, Matt. 15:19)


And Second Helvetic:
Sin. By sin we understand that innate corruption of man which has been derived or propagated in us all from our first parents, by which we, immersed in perverse desires and averse to all good are inclined to all evil. Full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt and hatred of God, we are unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves. Moreover, even as we grow older, so by wicked thoughts, words and deeds committed against God's law, we bring forth corrupt fruit worthy of an evil tree (Matt. 12:33 ff.). For this reason by our own deserts, being subject to the wrath of God, we are liable to just punishment, so that all of us would have been cast away by God if Christ, the Deliverer, had not brought us back.

Heidelberg Q7:
Q7: From where, then, does this depraved nature of man come?
A7: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise, whereby our nature became so corrupt that we are all conceived and born in sin

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Joseph,

You are missing my point here, I think.

I acknowledge (with emphasis) that it is Adam's federal sin that is imputed ot us, and the cause of our sinful condition. Adam's sin is exactly as is we had sinned in the garden ourselves - it is an action imputed to us (cf. Rom 5; 1 Cor 15).

But Original Sin includes more than that. Adam's sin begets sin. It begets personal actual sin (as opposed to federal actual sin) and a sinful nature (corruption).

This is in no way foreign to the Reformed tradition:

WCF 5.3 They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; (Gen. 1:27"“28, Gen. 2:16"“17, Acts 17:26, Rom. 5:12,15"“19, 1 Cor. 15:21"“22,45,49) and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (Ps. 51:5, Gen. 5:3, Job 14:4, Job 15:14)

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (Rom. 5:6, Rom. 8:7, Rom. 7:18, Col. 1:21) and wholly inclined to all evil, (Gen. 6:5, Gen. 8:21, Rom. 3:10"“12) do proceed all actual transgressions. (James 1:14"“15, Eph. 2:2"“3, Matt. 15:19)


And Second Helvetic:
Sin. By sin we understand that innate corruption of man which has been derived or propagated in us all from our first parents, by which we, immersed in perverse desires and averse to all good are inclined to all evil. Full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt and hatred of God, we are unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves. Moreover, even as we grow older, so by wicked thoughts, words and deeds committed against God's law, we bring forth corrupt fruit worthy of an evil tree (Matt. 12:33 ff.). For this reason by our own deserts, being subject to the wrath of God, we are liable to just punishment, so that all of us would have been cast away by God if Christ, the Deliverer, had not brought us back.

Heidelberg Q7:
Q7: From where, then, does this depraved nature of man come?
A7: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise, whereby our nature became so corrupt that we are all conceived and born in sin

I didnt have time to edit my post regarding the reformed tradition. I meant to say foreign to scripture but not the reformed traition.

And HC Q7 is one that I believe errors. If those confessions did not say what they say in regards to our sin nature, noone except an RC would use the term infused, and noone would include eve in the mix. Her name should not be included because she is never mentioned by anyone.

That was my original statement. And I am staying with it.



In His grace

Joseph

 

[kevin.carroll]

I also find that if anything, the WCF is NOT getting the credit it deserves in the Presbyterian Church today. Many Elders are taking "exceptions" and "scruples" with the Confession. Our assistant Pastor believes it is ok to watch images of Christ! This is riduculous in my opinion (not to mention gross idolotry), but it only shows the state of the reformed church today. [/quote]

I have never tried to "quote" before, so I may mess this up. The issue of strict subscriptionism is an important one because it begs the question of what a presbyterian is (or should be).

You mention the issue of images. When the whole flap over the Passion of the Christ erupted last year (about which Fred and I had a lively debate) I was always curious about what it was over. We were not debating the Second Commandment. We were debating our application of our interpretation of the Westminster Divine's application of the Westminster Divine's interpretation of the Second Commandment. Something seemed vaguely troubling about that. I was at presbytery one day when a young man took exception over this very issue. His installation was sustained, largely, I think, because not everyone sees it as an issue of idolatry. In any event, I think we have to be careful that we do not devlop a tacit elevation of the Standards to a par with the Scriptures.