Too much reliance on the WCF?? Full Conscription??
- Thread starter Covenant Joel
- Start date
- Status
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Absolutely. When church confessions become a Christian's functional authority, the confessional view of Scripture's authority is reduced to lip-service. Corporate confessions can be good and helpful, but the Bible should be both one's confessional and functional authority.
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Absolutely. When church confessions become a Christian's functional authority, the confessional view of Scripture's authority is reduced to lip-service. Corporate confessions can be good and helpful, but the Bible should be both one's confessional and functional authority.
And yet at the same time, we must acknowledge that if Creeds and Confession do not have authority for the Christian, there would be no doctrine of the Trinity. For the Arians were willing to "amen" the citation of any Scripture offered by Trinitarians, so long as they could put their own internal 'spin' on the text. It was only when the Arians were forced to affirm or deny homoousios, that the Biblical position won the day.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Just as a side note, I posted a paper by Lig Duncan regarding the Standards. In particular, he discussed original intent and animus impotentis (the spirit of the entity imposing the oath). He discusses the exceptions allowed by the Church of Scotland, which led to the changes to the WCF in 1787. the thread is HERE. The post is alittle more than half way down.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Greg...
I would challenge you to find a single instance in Reformed churches who subscribe to the Westminster Standards where Scripture's authority is reduced to lip-service.
In Christ,
KC
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Absolutely. When church confessions become a Christian's functional authority, the confessional view of Scripture's authority is reduced to lip-service. Corporate confessions can be good and helpful, but the Bible should be both one's confessional and functional authority.
I would challenge you to find a single instance in Reformed churches who subscribe to the Westminster Standards where Scripture's authority is reduced to lip-service.
In Christ,
KC
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Perhaps this has already been said...
I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because the Creed says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the de facto infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture.
This does not mean that we trample the creeds underfoot! It is possible to receive the creeds as a helpful guide, and testimony of how others have interpreted Scripture, without saying that I believe in the Trinity because of the Creed.
I believe in the Trinity for the following reason:
I believe that a synthesis of all the relevant texts requires it. The understanding of the collective group of Christians who composed the creed "“ plus the continued affirmation of that understanding by the vast majority of other Christians "“ gives me confidence and sureness in my interpretation. The collective testimony of God´s people confirms that we are being guided by the same Holy Spirit (since the Holy Spirit has been given to me just as much as to they). If my interpretation were to disagree then that should serve as a blaring warning siren that someone is wrong (since God, being a God of order, would not lead his people into mutually exclusive positions). At this point we need to step with caution and recheck our work, and recheck the work of those who came before us.
At some point one would have to make a decision: to say that God´s people have all been misled, or that person would need to seriously consider the odds of such a proposition actually being true, and say that most likely it is he or she that is wrong and humbly defer to the opinion of the Saints.
Either way, I absolutely reject the implicit understanding that the only group of Christians who had any real interpretive authority (or responsibility!) were those Christians who lived hundreds of years ago. To teach Scripture is to interpret Scripture, the Church is still given teachers, therefore the Church is still called to interpret Scripture. Otherwise, we have no need for teachers"¦ just research professors!
(That to teach is to interpret and apply Scripture is commonly understood why Scripture prohibits women from doing it, though they could prophesy"¦)
[Edited on 3-14-2005 by SolaScriptura]
I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because the Creed says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the de facto infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture.
This does not mean that we trample the creeds underfoot! It is possible to receive the creeds as a helpful guide, and testimony of how others have interpreted Scripture, without saying that I believe in the Trinity because of the Creed.
I believe in the Trinity for the following reason:
I believe that a synthesis of all the relevant texts requires it. The understanding of the collective group of Christians who composed the creed "“ plus the continued affirmation of that understanding by the vast majority of other Christians "“ gives me confidence and sureness in my interpretation. The collective testimony of God´s people confirms that we are being guided by the same Holy Spirit (since the Holy Spirit has been given to me just as much as to they). If my interpretation were to disagree then that should serve as a blaring warning siren that someone is wrong (since God, being a God of order, would not lead his people into mutually exclusive positions). At this point we need to step with caution and recheck our work, and recheck the work of those who came before us.
At some point one would have to make a decision: to say that God´s people have all been misled, or that person would need to seriously consider the odds of such a proposition actually being true, and say that most likely it is he or she that is wrong and humbly defer to the opinion of the Saints.
Either way, I absolutely reject the implicit understanding that the only group of Christians who had any real interpretive authority (or responsibility!) were those Christians who lived hundreds of years ago. To teach Scripture is to interpret Scripture, the Church is still given teachers, therefore the Church is still called to interpret Scripture. Otherwise, we have no need for teachers"¦ just research professors!
(That to teach is to interpret and apply Scripture is commonly understood why Scripture prohibits women from doing it, though they could prophesy"¦)
[Edited on 3-14-2005 by SolaScriptura]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
I wonder why some non-confessional groups don't see that they have set their consciences as the highest interpretor and systematic grid of scripture, thus not scripture at all. Though they would claim the bible only. They have become a thousand individual unrecorded confessionals of one. Yet, they think, they are more pure.
One would indeed be hard pressed to find a church that claims to be Christian in some form or another & states, if asked, "No, we don't adhere to the Bible alone - we just make it up as we go."
lh
One would indeed be hard pressed to find a church that claims to be Christian in some form or another & states, if asked, "No, we don't adhere to the Bible alone - we just make it up as we go."
lh
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Perhaps this has already been said...
I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because the Creed says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the de facto infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture.
This does not mean that we trample the creeds underfoot! It is possible to receive the creeds as a helpful guide, and testimony of how others have interpreted Scripture, without saying that I believe in the Trinity because of the Creed.
I believe in the Trinity for the following reason:
I believe that a synthesis of all the relevant texts requires it. The understanding of the collective group of Christians who composed the creed "“ plus the continued affirmation of that understanding by the vast majority of other Christians "“ gives me confidence and sureness in my interpretation. The collective testimony of God´s people confirms that we are being guided by the same Holy Spirit (since the Holy Spirit has been given to me just as much as to they). If my interpretation were to disagree then that should serve as a blaring warning siren that someone is wrong (since God, being a God of order, would not lead his people into mutually exclusive positions). At this point we need to step with caution and recheck our work, and recheck the work of those who came before us.
At some point one would have to make a decision: to say that God´s people have all been misled, or that person would need to seriously consider the odds of such a proposition actually being true, and say that most likely it is he or she that is wrong and humbly defer to the opinion of the Saints.
Either way, I absolutely reject the implicit understanding that the only group of Christians who had any real interpretive authority (or responsibility!) were those Christians who lived hundreds of years ago. To teach Scripture is to interpret Scripture, the Church is still given teachers, therefore the Church is still called to interpret Scripture. Otherwise, we have no need for teachers"¦ just research professors!
(That to teach is to interpret and apply Scripture is commonly understood why Scripture prohibits women from doing it, though they could prophesy"¦)
[Edited on 3-14-2005 by SolaScriptura]
Ben: wonderfully put.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Not to speak for Fred, but I believe what he was getting at was that light, which the Holy Spirit shined on men because of the truth of Scripture, was what enabled them to overcome the Arians. Had no one stood on Scripture and common confession regarding the Trinity, then the Arians would have won the day. Oh, and they would have won the day, all the time claiming to be interpreting the Scriptures correctly.
Now my question is does the light of the truth about the Trinity need ever to be illumined again to us? Does not this light still shine, because of the truth of Scripture? We certainly need the Holy Spirit to enlighten our minds, but we do not need Him to teach us something new and never before discovered.
In this way, we understand the authoritative Scriptures on the doctrine of the Trinity partly because of the creeds. Creed is, afterall, belief. There is nothing wrong with saying I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. I am not lifting this phrase above Scripture. I am most certainly agreeing with Scripture as well as agreeing with the church through all ages.
When someone disagrees with me about a portion of the creed, say, that Christ was born of the virgin Mary, then with the Scriptures as the authority and the secondary standards as a common understanding of that authority, I should be able to tell them why they're wrong. They're not wrong only because of the Scriptures, but they're wrong also because of the church has condemned them as well through the creeds and confessions.
Light is light. The Holy Spirit's work has been easier, if it may be said so, because of the volumes and lives we have as examples.
In Christ,
KC
Now my question is does the light of the truth about the Trinity need ever to be illumined again to us? Does not this light still shine, because of the truth of Scripture? We certainly need the Holy Spirit to enlighten our minds, but we do not need Him to teach us something new and never before discovered.
In this way, we understand the authoritative Scriptures on the doctrine of the Trinity partly because of the creeds. Creed is, afterall, belief. There is nothing wrong with saying I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. I am not lifting this phrase above Scripture. I am most certainly agreeing with Scripture as well as agreeing with the church through all ages.
When someone disagrees with me about a portion of the creed, say, that Christ was born of the virgin Mary, then with the Scriptures as the authority and the secondary standards as a common understanding of that authority, I should be able to tell them why they're wrong. They're not wrong only because of the Scriptures, but they're wrong also because of the church has condemned them as well through the creeds and confessions.
Light is light. The Holy Spirit's work has been easier, if it may be said so, because of the volumes and lives we have as examples.
In Christ,
KC
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I see the standards of faith, I mean the Confessional Standards, as the witness of the church down through history to us, the next generation. By it we can tell whether we are one with them in doctrine and practice.
Where I think these Standards are fallible is in the fact that they cannot be comprehensive in the same sense as Scripture. Things change with time, like the magistrate issue, and we need to change with them. The WA could not possibly have foreseen this, and so we accommodate the Confessions accordingly, so that the teachings remain the same.
Some claim continuity with the church of all ages, but have in reality taken a turn away from that continuity, as if the truth first came to them. But it is just for these reasons that we make ourselves scholars on our forefathers in the faith. We want to prove the faith that we have, to make sure that we are not running in vain, on our own authority or interpretations.
Where I think these Standards are fallible is in the fact that they cannot be comprehensive in the same sense as Scripture. Things change with time, like the magistrate issue, and we need to change with them. The WA could not possibly have foreseen this, and so we accommodate the Confessions accordingly, so that the teachings remain the same.
Some claim continuity with the church of all ages, but have in reality taken a turn away from that continuity, as if the truth first came to them. But it is just for these reasons that we make ourselves scholars on our forefathers in the faith. We want to prove the faith that we have, to make sure that we are not running in vain, on our own authority or interpretations.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by kceaster
Are you suggesting, then, that the divines were misinterpreting Scripture relating to the 2nd commandment?
No, I'm saying that the possibility lurks that they went beyond the commandment in their application of their interpretation of the commandment. And that really was the substance of much of the discussions I observed last year, only another step removed. That is the discussions revolved over how we were applying our understanding of the Standards, rather than the Second Commandment.
I agree with those who have remarked on this thread that we must bear in mind that the Standards are the work of men. As such they are subject to error. We must always hold any statement of belief and practice up to the scrutiny of Scripture and not vice versa.
And Kevin is fine.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
And yet at the same time, we must acknowledge that if Creeds and Confession do not have authority for the Christian, there would be no doctrine of the Trinity. For the Arians were willing to "amen" the citation of any Scripture offered by Trinitarians, so long as they could put their own internal 'spin' on the text. It was only when the Arians were forced to affirm or deny homoousios, that the Biblical position won the day. [/quote]
Authority, yes, but to what extent? I would argue (as I'm sure you would) that creeds express the understood teachings of the Bible, though they are not, in themselves, scripture...or canon...or whatever. A creed or confession has authority inasmuch as it remains in accord with the Scriptures. Therein lies the responsibility of each generation to reaffirm their creed in the light of their understanding of the Scriptures. I think an excellent example of this is the updating of the Standards that have to do with the separation of Church and State, something neither Calvin, Knox, nor the Divines envisioned.
With regards to Westminster I'm not sure I want to put it on the same level as Nicea. To begin with, Nicea as an ecumenical council spoke for the orthodox, catholic church. That level of unity no longer exists and it is difficult for any council to make such sweeping pronouncements. Second, Nicea was dealing with the larger issue of what must a Christian believe in order to be considered a Christian. I don't think the Divines were quite that bold in their position were they?
I realize my thoughts here have probably been unduly influenced by your friend and mine, John Frame, but he does make some good points regarding keeping creeds in their proper place.
Authority, yes, but to what extent? I would argue (as I'm sure you would) that creeds express the understood teachings of the Bible, though they are not, in themselves, scripture...or canon...or whatever. A creed or confession has authority inasmuch as it remains in accord with the Scriptures. Therein lies the responsibility of each generation to reaffirm their creed in the light of their understanding of the Scriptures. I think an excellent example of this is the updating of the Standards that have to do with the separation of Church and State, something neither Calvin, Knox, nor the Divines envisioned.
With regards to Westminster I'm not sure I want to put it on the same level as Nicea. To begin with, Nicea as an ecumenical council spoke for the orthodox, catholic church. That level of unity no longer exists and it is difficult for any council to make such sweeping pronouncements. Second, Nicea was dealing with the larger issue of what must a Christian believe in order to be considered a Christian. I don't think the Divines were quite that bold in their position were they?
I realize my thoughts here have probably been unduly influenced by your friend and mine, John Frame, but he does make some good points regarding keeping creeds in their proper place.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
KevinC: (not KevinE)
What then is meant by this statement?
What is not in accord with Scripture, and therefore has no authority? And the fact that what is in accord with Scripture give that part of it the same authority as Scripture? What exactly do you mean? Or prehaps, what don't you mean?
On the surface of it, going directly by what you say in that statement, our respective views ought not to differ one iota. But they sure seem to. So you must mean something other by it than some of us do.
What then is meant by this statement?
What is not in accord with Scripture, and therefore has no authority? And the fact that what is in accord with Scripture give that part of it the same authority as Scripture? What exactly do you mean? Or prehaps, what don't you mean?
On the surface of it, going directly by what you say in that statement, our respective views ought not to differ one iota. But they sure seem to. So you must mean something other by it than some of us do.
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Perhaps this has already been said...
I think it is possible to put the cart before the horse. If what you´re saying is that the Trinitarian position is what we must believe because the Creed says so, then the creed is the ultimate authority "“ and is the de facto infallible interpreter of Scripture. I reject the idea that our conscience MUST be bound by the creed. No, our conscience is only bound by Scripture.
This does not mean that we trample the creeds underfoot! It is possible to receive the creeds as a helpful guide, and testimony of how others have interpreted Scripture, without saying that I believe in the Trinity because of the Creed.
I believe in the Trinity for the following reason:
I believe that a synthesis of all the relevant texts requires it. The understanding of the collective group of Christians who composed the creed "“ plus the continued affirmation of that understanding by the vast majority of other Christians "“ gives me confidence and sureness in my interpretation. The collective testimony of God´s people confirms that we are being guided by the same Holy Spirit (since the Holy Spirit has been given to me just as much as to they). If my interpretation were to disagree then that should serve as a blaring warning siren that someone is wrong (since God, being a God of order, would not lead his people into mutually exclusive positions). At this point we need to step with caution and recheck our work, and recheck the work of those who came before us.
At some point one would have to make a decision: to say that God´s people have all been misled, or that person would need to seriously consider the odds of such a proposition actually being true, and say that most likely it is he or she that is wrong and humbly defer to the opinion of the Saints.
Either way, I absolutely reject the implicit understanding that the only group of Christians who had any real interpretive authority (or responsibility!) were those Christians who lived hundreds of years ago. To teach Scripture is to interpret Scripture, the Church is still given teachers, therefore the Church is still called to interpret Scripture. Otherwise, we have no need for teachers"¦ just research professors!
(That to teach is to interpret and apply Scripture is commonly understood why Scripture prohibits women from doing it, though they could prophesy"¦)
[Edited on 3-14-2005 by SolaScriptura]
Ben,
I agree in the main. That is why I have always emphasized to those I have taught, and especially elder trainees, that our Confessions - unlike Rome's - are amendable. In fact, that is why I think the Adopting Act was a good thing. I don't wish to re-enter the lists in the battle over the civil magistrate either; but suffice it to say that I vie wit not as a result of the influence of the Englightenment, but rather a better interpretation of what the Scriptures teach.
But what I meant was this - creeds and confession are necessary. They are necessary in two senses:
1. To define the boundaries of unity (and hence what belief is outside of that communion). So for example, Baptists do not have a level of communion with paedobaptists that they do with themselves, because the reject paedobaptism. The reverse is equally true. Does that make Baptists unbelievers? mh, genoito !
Why? Because some articles of faith are more fundamental than others - to Kevin's point about Nicea. But that does not mean baptism is unimportant and should not be confessed.
2. Often it is only through Confessions and Creeds that the truth of the Bible can be expressed. For example, it is possible for a Unitarian to say that he believes every Scripture that Ben believes. But we know that this cannot be the case, because one is a Unitarian, and one a Trinitarian. The solution is to make an extra-Biblical statement that precisely points out the difference in interpretation of the texts at issue.
One final point. Confessions also have a measure of authority because they are voluntary. There is no one who compelled the PCA (for example) to make the WCF its confession. They could have adopted some of it, or another Confession altogether. That is exactly (in some sense) what the Adopting Act did - it rejected a portion of the WCF. The problem with men like Frame (and Kevin has heard this ad nauseam) is that they want to say that the Confession is their Confession, and then say that only part of it is binding.
"Very well," we say, "what part?"
And the answer always is some variation of "The part that I think is important."
So we ask, "How do you come to that conclusion?"
And the answer inevitably is some variation of "Because I say so." You see, Frame's view of subscription in DKG is not liberty, it is a license to make each man a Pope - and Frame so often thinks he is the smartest and best Pope.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
This is such a misapplied notion!
Let's have a discussion on the Trinity. We sit down, choose ALL the verses that apply, and read them. Then what? Do we sit in silence? Of course not. We explain the Trinity. We confess it. How? We quote the Scripture and that's all? NO! Instead, we explain it using words because the meaning behind our words and the Scriptures words ABOUT the Trinity are the SAME THING.
Take an easy example: Jesus is God. Okay, now go do a search with you bible program and find me ONE Scripture that says "Jesus is God."
I'll wait............ ............... ............... ...............
Okay then - there isn't one. When i search in Bibleworks for the phrase "Jesus is God." it comes up with a big ZERO.
I could quote:
John 1:36 And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"
or
Acts 8:37 And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
or
etc. etc.
Now when I say "Jesu is God" and you agree with me, we are confessing the TRUTH of the Bible.
This is where I find all the talk about the "confession" being raised above the Bible and etc. Not at all. When soemthig coincides with the Bible, the meaning is the same. The BIBLE is the ultiamte authority. When I say "Jesus is God" THAT is the ultiamtely authority because it conveys the biblical meaning.
This is where I think that Confessional/Biblical wars are so rediculous. It is also the reason so many today miss the entire point of the confession of faith of the church through the centuries.
I believe in the Trinity. The Bible says so. I believe that. The Confession says the SAME THING. I believe that too. Which one is not the biblical message? Neither - they both are. There is no cart and horse. There is only the mode in which the "thing" (i.e. the concepts about the Trinity) are conveyed.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Kevin...
{Please be careful with the quote function -- keep things clear}
No, I'm saying that the possibility lurks that they went beyond the commandment in their application of their interpretation of the commandment. And that really was the substance of much of the discussions I observed last year, only another step removed. That is the discussions revolved over how we were applying our understanding of the Standards, rather than the Second Commandment.
I agree with those who have remarked on this thread that we must bear in mind that the Standards are the work of men. As such they are subject to error. We must always hold any statement of belief and practice up to the scrutiny of Scripture and not vice versa.
And Kevin is fine. [/quote]
But as I said before, all confessions, to include my own, are subject to error. In that case, I would rather err with someone, than err by my lonesome.
Remember, if one says that they do not subscribe to an ecumenical creed or confession, by default, it means that this one subscribes to their own creed or confession. Everyone who claims to be Christian, holds to a creed and confession. And yet all claim to be Biblical. Something's gotta give.
Let me put it another way, in order for us to know what the Scriptures teach, we have to learn what they teach. Now, scriptural knowledge or wisdom cannot come without learning and learning cannot come without teaching. If we believe something we have learned that the Bible teaches and that belief is in error, who is the teacher? Conversely, if we believe something we have learned that the Bible teaches and it is not in error, who is the teacher?
Whichever the case, if we know the truth at all, it is because of common teaching and common learning. In this way, the truth is know by all who have been taught it, because it comes to them the same way. And we know that the truth is taught to us by the Spirit of Christ.
Therefore, the truth of Scripture is not uncommon. If it is truth, it is known commonly. This is not to say that individuals do not have levels of understanding. However, if God has revealed a singular common truth, then it stands forever and needs never be disputed. Such is the case with the doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Salvation. There is common understanding of all of these things that the Scriptures teach. But the way we know that these things are true is because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit through the ages, through fallible men, and fallible writings. It is inescapable. If we talk of heresy at all, it is because of common understanding, because it is the common understanding of the Scriptures which makes heresy, heresy. If there were no common understanding, there would be no error.
Do you understand what I'm getting at. It is one thing to say that the Scriptures are authoritative. But the demons in hell also believe this. The radical arians, donatists, and every other heretical group have all rested on the Scriptures authority. The difference between orthodoxy and heresy is common understanding and the testimony of the Spirit to the church.
Thus, secondary standards can never, and will never be raised above the Scriptures among men who are filled with the Spirit of Christ. We can multiply examples of those who have gone astray, but the Spirit did not lead them there, nor will He lead us astray if we believe the creeds and confessions are what the Bible teaches.
I just do not understand what is so wrong with the definitions we have in the creeds and confessions. How can these documents lead us astray? If we go astray at all, it is because we have placed something out of order. And what if we try to elevate the standards above the Bible? Can we really understand the standards to do so? They are built so that they cannot be placed above the Scriptures because one cannot both subscribe to them, and violate them at the same time. To teach contrary to them is not subscription, and to teach them over the Bible is not subscription. These are not the writings of Rome. Rome would have written them in such a way as to protect the confession. The confessions were written in such a way as to protect the Scriptures.
In Christ,
KC
[Edited on 3/15/2005 by fredtgreco]
[Edited on 3-15-2005 by kceaster]
{Please be careful with the quote function -- keep things clear}
No, I'm saying that the possibility lurks that they went beyond the commandment in their application of their interpretation of the commandment. And that really was the substance of much of the discussions I observed last year, only another step removed. That is the discussions revolved over how we were applying our understanding of the Standards, rather than the Second Commandment.
I agree with those who have remarked on this thread that we must bear in mind that the Standards are the work of men. As such they are subject to error. We must always hold any statement of belief and practice up to the scrutiny of Scripture and not vice versa.
And Kevin is fine.
[/quote]But as I said before, all confessions, to include my own, are subject to error. In that case, I would rather err with someone, than err by my lonesome.
Remember, if one says that they do not subscribe to an ecumenical creed or confession, by default, it means that this one subscribes to their own creed or confession. Everyone who claims to be Christian, holds to a creed and confession. And yet all claim to be Biblical. Something's gotta give.
Let me put it another way, in order for us to know what the Scriptures teach, we have to learn what they teach. Now, scriptural knowledge or wisdom cannot come without learning and learning cannot come without teaching. If we believe something we have learned that the Bible teaches and that belief is in error, who is the teacher? Conversely, if we believe something we have learned that the Bible teaches and it is not in error, who is the teacher?
Whichever the case, if we know the truth at all, it is because of common teaching and common learning. In this way, the truth is know by all who have been taught it, because it comes to them the same way. And we know that the truth is taught to us by the Spirit of Christ.
Therefore, the truth of Scripture is not uncommon. If it is truth, it is known commonly. This is not to say that individuals do not have levels of understanding. However, if God has revealed a singular common truth, then it stands forever and needs never be disputed. Such is the case with the doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Salvation. There is common understanding of all of these things that the Scriptures teach. But the way we know that these things are true is because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit through the ages, through fallible men, and fallible writings. It is inescapable. If we talk of heresy at all, it is because of common understanding, because it is the common understanding of the Scriptures which makes heresy, heresy. If there were no common understanding, there would be no error.
Do you understand what I'm getting at. It is one thing to say that the Scriptures are authoritative. But the demons in hell also believe this. The radical arians, donatists, and every other heretical group have all rested on the Scriptures authority. The difference between orthodoxy and heresy is common understanding and the testimony of the Spirit to the church.
Thus, secondary standards can never, and will never be raised above the Scriptures among men who are filled with the Spirit of Christ. We can multiply examples of those who have gone astray, but the Spirit did not lead them there, nor will He lead us astray if we believe the creeds and confessions are what the Bible teaches.
I just do not understand what is so wrong with the definitions we have in the creeds and confessions. How can these documents lead us astray? If we go astray at all, it is because we have placed something out of order. And what if we try to elevate the standards above the Bible? Can we really understand the standards to do so? They are built so that they cannot be placed above the Scriptures because one cannot both subscribe to them, and violate them at the same time. To teach contrary to them is not subscription, and to teach them over the Bible is not subscription. These are not the writings of Rome. Rome would have written them in such a way as to protect the confession. The confessions were written in such a way as to protect the Scriptures.
In Christ,
KC
[Edited on 3/15/2005 by fredtgreco]
[Edited on 3-15-2005 by kceaster]
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Ok, I can concur with that. I would say that you can be a good, sincere Christian and not agree with any of the "nonessentials" of the WCF. However, when a group of people/churches say "this is what we believe the Bible teaches" then I don't think it is asking too much that they also say "if you want to join our ranks then you need to believe as we do." If you don't believe that the Bible teaches, say, that we should treat the Lord's Day as a sabbath rest, then that's fine... but you'll need to go find likeminded people to associate with, thank you very much.
This is essentially what I find Samuel Miller saying as Confessionalism pertains to matters of fellowship... am I correct? I'd agree with that.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Don't forget Matt 20:28!
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Ok, I can concur with that. I would say that you can be a good, sincere Christian and not agree with any of the "nonessentials" of the WCF. However, when a group of people/churches say "this is what we believe the Bible teaches" then I don't think it is asking too much that they also say "if you want to join our ranks then you need to believe as we do." If you don't believe that the Bible teaches, say, that we should treat the Lord's Day as a sabbath rest, then that's fine... but you'll need to go find likeminded people to associate with, thank you very much.
This is essentially what I find Samuel Miller saying as Confessionalism pertains to matters of fellowship... am I correct? I'd agree with that.
Yes, I think that is essentially the case.
I would only add that if someone who is not in a WCF communion does not believe in the Lord's Day, that I would say that they have missed the teaching of Scripture. But I would not say that they have failed to follow the teaching of the WCF, but Scripture itself. That case is different than the one who has said that the WCF is his Confession.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
I keep reading about the "non-essentials". Does anyone want to make a list of what the non-essentials are in the Westminster Standards?
Regarding subscription, it appears that it can't be repeated enough; only officers in the Presbyterian Church are required to subscribe to the Standards and no one else. And no one puts a gun to anyones head forcing them to become an officer.
Regarding subscription, it appears that it can't be repeated enough; only officers in the Presbyterian Church are required to subscribe to the Standards and no one else. And no one puts a gun to anyones head forcing them to become an officer.
Maybe I am the wrong person to answer this, but for me, this refers simply to those portions of the Confession that are not required beliefs in order to be a Christian. That is why I can view baptists as Christians, Lutherans who do not espouse the 3rd use of the Law, and evangelicals who do not espouse the RPW.
But as far as those who have subscribed to the Confession, I see no non-essentials. Of course Frame does, and he will be happy to tell you what he has determined is non-essential, and that because he has determined that, those portions have no force.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Let me make myself a bit clearer, my point in asking what are the non-essentials is to determine what doctrines in the Standards are not actually taught in Scripture. The fact that some of the teaching of the Standards may or may not define us as "Christians", such as church government, was not my point.
Scripture is the Word of God and the rule for life and faith for each Christian and the Church. We are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Since the Standards are based on Scripture and reflects what Scripture teaches then what part of the Standards and Scripture are non-essential for Christians to believe.
I am bringing this up because the initial question concerned how the Standards were viewed compared to Scripture and how could the Church hold to full subscription. No officer in the Presbyterian Church views the Standards as equal or above Scripture. It would be a serious exception to the Standards if they did. One that would disqualify them as an officer of the Church. And those who say that it is held above Scripture are offering a red herring argument.
Scripture is the Word of God and the rule for life and faith for each Christian and the Church. We are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Since the Standards are based on Scripture and reflects what Scripture teaches then what part of the Standards and Scripture are non-essential for Christians to believe.
I am bringing this up because the initial question concerned how the Standards were viewed compared to Scripture and how could the Church hold to full subscription. No officer in the Presbyterian Church views the Standards as equal or above Scripture. It would be a serious exception to the Standards if they did. One that would disqualify them as an officer of the Church. And those who say that it is held above Scripture are offering a red herring argument.
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
I was not suggesting that any officers in the Presbyterian Church actually take such a position. I was commenting on something that I had noticed here and other places: A very strong reliance on the WCF, such that many times, it is quoted rather than the Scriptures.
Having said that, though, I wish that Presbyterian churches would use the WCF more, and especially the Shorter Catechism (although personally I wish it was in somewhat more modern language). That was a great asset to me, as I learned the Catechism growing up and read the Confession. It gave me a solid doctrinal base to grow up around.
The reason that full subscription for officers *seems* to me to be dangerous is this: If there are any discrepancies between an officers' belief and the WCf, then he would have to step down. If that is the case, then there is no possibility of ever amending the Confession, as far as I can tell. Because to even consider an amendment, the man/men considering it would have to step down, and therefore any attempt at amendment would be stopped. That would seem to make the WCF infallible, which I think is a term that should only be applied to Scripture.
Joel
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
I mean just that. As Reformed people we set the Scriptures above our creeds and acknowledge that our creeds (as expressions of our understanding of the Scriptures) are the works of men and, as such are subject to error. If we do not hold that position, we might as well go back to Rome. Their creeds are, after all, older than ours.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Therein is the rub isn't it? When the young man I mentioned in a previous post took exception to the Standards' application of the Second Commandment, his call was still sustained (albeit after much debate). So here is an example (at least in this Presbytery) of an officer who is not a strict subscriptionist.
As an interesting aside, and ammendment too his call was debated that his call be sustained with an admonitiont that he not teach his views on the Second Commandment. That ammendment we defeated on a procedural point: the BCO did not grant the Presbytery the authority to restrict someone from teaching a certain thing...Sounds like beating a speeding ticket from a local cop on a federal highway because the local community doesn't have a law establishing the speed limit. Someone should look into that rather dangerous loophole (in the BCO and not the traffic laws!).
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
As you know the extent of subscription is determined by the court. Exceptions to the Standards can be allowed by the courts depending upon the nature of the exception. It appears that the court in the case you mentioned was divided on the exception but a majority prevailed. Regarding whether the person in question can teach and preach their view, this is something that goes on in Presbyteries and Sessions across the PCA and OPC. Exceptions are granted but the person can not teach or preach that exception. I would think that your Presbytery should get a ruling from the CCB or ask the Stated Clerk on that particular issue.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Joel,
As I noted in my post to Kevin, exceptions can be allowed by the court based on the nature of the exception. If you want to take an exception regarding the Standard's position on Justification, odds are pretty good that you will get the boot! But say you want to change the wording of a section or add a Chapter that you believe the Standards do not address, you can get that changed by submitting your change through the courts of the Church.
Most of the folks who hold to full subscription will allow for an exception to the Standards as long as that exception does not disturb the essence or substance of what the Standards teach.
Kevin,
First point: the Presbytery was wrong. If a question was sent up to CCB (Committee on Constitutional Business), it would most certainly be answered that the Presbytery has that authority should it so wish. In point of fact, many Presbyteries do exactly that.
Second point: full subscription does not require no exceptions to the Standards (let's not forget the Catechisms!). What it does require is the man to affirm all the doctrinal substance of the Standards (i.e. that would not include a scruple about the word "passions" in WCF 2.1 because the word means something different today, and the man agrees with the substance of what is meant - changability, not emotion). What system subscription says is that there is a set of doctrines within the Standards (what they are, no exactly knows or states), and it is these that a man must subscribe to or take exception to. If it is a doctrine that is not "essential to the system," then the man need not be concerned about it.
So lets, not produce a straw man - full subscription does not prevent all exceptions, does not prevent vigorous debate within the courts of the Church regarding whether the Standards should be changed, and is not tyranny.
- Status
