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

[kevin.carroll]

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. [/quote]

I think I was using the term "strict subscription," which in my mind connotes a slavish adherence to the Standards. I'm not sure you and I would really have any disagreement at all.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

But isn't this similar to the very thing you spoke about regarding Frame's take on confessionalism in your previous post, in that it sees certain things as "doctrines" and others as somehow in a different category, similar to how men like him see "essential" and "non-essential" parts within the confession? That "unspoken" bi-categorization seems to be the very reason there is such a doctrinal mess today and such a lack of even elder subscription within the Church, since however small it may begin, the definition of what are not classified as "doctrines" and what is not binding always seems to broaden with time.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

But isn't this similar to the very thing you spoke about regarding Frame's take on confessionalism in your previous post, in that it sees certain things as "doctrines" and others as somehow in a different category, similar to how men like him see "essential" and "non-essential" parts within the confession? That "unspoken" bi-categorization seems to be the very reason there is such a doctrinal mess today and such a lack of even elder subscription within the Church, since however small it may begin, the definition of what are not classified as "doctrines" and what is not binding always seems to broaden with time.

No, Chris. There is a huge difference. In what I am describing, it is up to the Church court to decide whether an exception is warranted or not, may be taught or not. The court may decide to grant one man an exception (because of his humility, exegetical work, etc.) and deny the exact same exception to another man (because of his pride, lack of exegetical work, etc). No one binds the conscience of the court.

In Frame's view (at least as described in DKG), the Church court has no right to deny a man an exception that (in Frame's mind) "goes beyond Scripture." It is not a matter for debate. The Church court is wrong in Frame's opinion if they choose not to grant an exception. But what areas are these? Well, they are fluid, with no written representation - otherwise they would be part of (or absent from) the Confession. Rather than say, "let's take article X out of the Confession," Frame and those like him would rather say, "tehre are things in the Confession that don't really count. I won't make up a list, I won't work through the courts, but I'll tell you when I feel like it which ones don't count. Oh, and you can take that on my say so, since I have no backing of a Church court, or Confession to stand on."

Sounds like mini-Popery to me.

 

[wsw201]

One of the problems I see in this discussion and all the discussions regarding the Standards is the use of the terms "essential and non-essential". Since the Standards are based on Scripture then there are no "non-essential" doctrines taught in the Standards. Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian. As noted before, what you believe regarding Church Govt, ie; Preby or Independent, does not determine whether you are a Christian.

So I'll ask again, what are the non-essential teachings in the Standards?

 

[wsw201]

{Moved to The Confession of Faith Forum}

 

[SolaScriptura]

Fred - from what you're saying about Frame, it sounds like he has a lot to learn about "house rules!"
In what other fraternal organization do the applicants get to decide the basis of their acceptance into the group? If a person wants to associate himself with presbyterians then it should come as no shock that presbyterians expect him to hold to their standards as one of the criteria for that fellowship.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by wsw201
One of the problems I see in this discussion and all the discussions regarding the Standards is the use of the terms "essential and non-essential". Since the Standards are based on Scripture then there are no "non-essential" doctrines taught in the Standards. Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian. As noted before, what you believe regarding Church Govt, ie; Preby or Independent, does not determine whether you are a Christian.

So I'll ask again, what are the non-essential teachings in the Standards?

You mention that the Standards are not a litmus test to determine if someone is or is not a Christian.... but some of the doctrines in the Standards are litmus test doctrines! You cannot deny the doctrine of Chapter 2, concerning God, for instance, and still be saved. Yet, as you also point out, many of the doctrines in the Standards are not a "litmus test" that reveals one's status as saved or not.
From what I've seen in evangelicals based upon my education at Moody (an evangelical school for true evangelicals!) and in my experience as a youth pastor in a truly evangelical denomination, the tendency among evangelicals is to declare any doctrine other than those necessary for salvation as being non-essential.
Among semi-Reformed folks, (such as many I've seen at SBTS) they would say that those elements of the Westminster standards that capture the main thrust of reformed theology - God's sovereignty, man's depravity, etc... those are believed to be essentials for being Reformed, while one's position on specific matters such as infant baptism or the RP or the Lord's Day are not. Basically, this is a result of the confusion that results when one believes that holding to Calvinistic soteriology equates with being Reformed. Thus, those doctrines that directly relate to TULIP are often considered "essential" reformed teachings, while those doctrines that do not touch on this are non-essential.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Fred - from what you're saying about Frame, it sounds like he has a lot to learn about "house rules!"
In what other fraternal organization do the applicants get to decide the basis of their acceptance into the group? If a person wants to associate himself with presbyterians then it should come as no shock that presbyterians expect him to hold to their standards as one of the criteria for that fellowship.

Ben,

I think the problem is more systemetic than that. Frame's point (I believe) is that the Church should not be tied to all the doctrines in the Confession, just the (really) important ones. The problem with this approach - it is not new - is "who gets to decide?" So it is implicit tyranny.

I don't have my copy of DKG anymore (I saw no need to keep it, since I found it of so little worth) so perhaps someone could actually post the relevant section on subscription. That way it is not my summary only. It is easily found, in the index under subscription, and the whole passage is like a page long.

Anyone?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by wsw201
One of the problems I see in this discussion and all the discussions regarding the Standards is the use of the terms "essential and non-essential". Since the Standards are based on Scripture then there are no "non-essential" doctrines taught in the Standards. Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian. As noted before, what you believe regarding Church Govt, ie; Preby or Independent, does not determine whether you are a Christian.

So I'll ask again, what are the non-essential teachings in the Standards?

You mention that the Standards are not a litmus test to determine if someone is or is not a Christian.... but some of the doctrines in the Standards are litmus test doctrines! You cannot deny the doctrine of Chapter 2, concerning God, for instance, and still be saved. Yet, as you also point out, many of the doctrines in the Standards are not a "litmus test" that reveals one's status as saved or not.
From what I've seen in evangelicals based upon my education at Moody (an evangelical school for true evangelicals!) and in my experience as a youth pastor in a truly evangelical denomination, the tendency among evangelicals is to declare any doctrine other than those necessary for salvation as being non-essential.
Among semi-Reformed folks, (such as many I've seen at SBTS) they would say that those elements of the Westminster standards that capture the main thrust of reformed theology - God's sovereignty, man's depravity, etc... those are believed to be essentials for being Reformed, while one's position on specific matters such as infant baptism or the RP or the Lord's Day are not. Basically, this is a result of the confusion that results when one believes that holding to Calvinistic soteriology equates with being Reformed. Thus, those doctrines that directly relate to TULIP are often considered "essential" reformed teachings, while those doctrines that do not touch on this are non-essential.

I agree. That is why from the Church's perspective, there are no false or extraBiblical doctrines in the Confession, otherwise they should be removed or changed.

But there can be and are non-essentials to the Christian faith (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity is different from the doctrine of paedobaptism). There are therefore no nonessential doctrines with respect to the Confession (i.e. every that is in the Confession is there for a reason, b/c the Church has determined that it is Biblical); but there are non-essential doctrines with respect to the faith (i.e. you don't need to believe everything in the Confession to be a Christian).

Does that make sense?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
There are therefore no nonessential doctrines with respect to the Confession (i.e. every that is in the Confession is there for a reason, b/c the Church has determined that it is Biblical); but there are non-essential doctrines with respect to the faith (i.e. you don't need to believe everything in the Confession to be a Christian).

Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes perfect sense.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by wsw201
Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian.

This is exactly why the comparisons made between Nicea and Westminster ultimately break down. The former is a litmus test; the latter is not.

Originally posted by fredtgrecoThat is why from the Church's perspective, there are no false or extraBiblical doctrines in the Confession, otherwise they should be removed or changed.

Well, not from the one true catholic Church's perspective, but perhaps from your church's perspective. From the perspective of my church along with all Baptist churches, Methodist churches, Anglican churches, Lutheran churches, and so on, there certainly are false or extraBiblical doctrines in the WCF that ought to be removed or changed. :bigsmile: I would also venture to guess that there are many PCA members themselves who would say that there are at least one false or extraBiblical doctrine in the WCF.

Originally posted by fredtgrecoBut there can be and are non-essentials to the Christian faith (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity is different from the doctrine of paedobaptism).

Exactly.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Fred - from what you're saying about Frame, it sounds like he has a lot to learn about "house rules!"
In what other fraternal organization do the applicants get to decide the basis of their acceptance into the group? If a person wants to associate himself with presbyterians then it should come as no shock that presbyterians expect him to hold to their standards as one of the criteria for that fellowship.

Fred REALLY does not like Frame. However, I think he is also using hyperbole rather than really representing Frame's position. Frame in DKG spends a good deal of time defending Creeds and Confessions...provided they do not become another Bible. It is true he is not a strict subscriptionist, but that is more because of what he calls amiguity in language than any other factor. I get a lot of opportunity to (good naturedly) rib Fred about Frame in person, so I will refrain from it here. :bigsmile:

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Fred - from what you're saying about Frame, it sounds like he has a lot to learn about "house rules!"
In what other fraternal organization do the applicants get to decide the basis of their acceptance into the group? If a person wants to associate himself with presbyterians then it should come as no shock that presbyterians expect him to hold to their standards as one of the criteria for that fellowship.

Ben,

I think the problem is more systemetic than that. Frame's point (I believe) is that the Church should not be tied to all the doctrines in the Confession, just the (really) important ones. The problem with this approach - it is not new - is "who gets to decide?" So it is implicit tyranny.

I don't have my copy of DKG anymore (I saw no need to keep it, since I found it of so little worth) so perhaps someone could actually post the relevant section on subscription. That way it is not my summary only. It is easily found, in the index under subscription, and the whole passage is like a page long.

Anyone?

I'll do it Fred!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by wsw201
Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian.

This is exactly why the comparisons made between Nicea and Westminster ultimately break down. The former is a litmus test; the latter is not.

Originally posted by fredtgrecoThat is why from the Church's perspective, there are no false or extraBiblical doctrines in the Confession, otherwise they should be removed or changed.

Well, not from the one true catholic Church's perspective, but perhaps from your church's perspective. From the perspective of my church along with all Baptist churches, Methodist churches, Anglican churches, Lutheran churches, and so on, there certainly are false or extraBiblical doctrines in the WCF that ought to be removed or changed. :bigsmile: I would also venture to guess that there are many PCA members themselves who would say that there are at least one false or extraBiblical doctrine in the WCF.

Originally posted by fredtgrecoBut there can be and are non-essentials to the Christian faith (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity is different from the doctrine of paedobaptism).

Exactly.

Greg,

By "Church" I mean more than a local congregation, and less than the exclusive visible body of Christ (that must be so, since I have alredy acknowledged that there are believers outside of those who espouse the WCF). And you are correct that there are some in the PCA who would deny the WCF's perspective. That makes them wrong. I venture to say that there is at least one person in a baptist church that does not espouse credobaptism, but I don't see that making you abandon the practice.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by wsw201
Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian.

This is exactly why the comparisons made between Nicea and Westminster ultimately break down. The former is a litmus test; the latter is not.

But you can't get away that easy! If Nicea is a litmus test then are either all Eastern Orthodox unbelievers, or all Western Christians?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I don't have my copy of DKG anymore (I saw no need to keep it, since I found it of so little worth) so perhaps someone could actually post the relevant section on subscription. That way it is not my summary only. It is easily found, in the index under subscription, and the whole passage is like a page long.

Anyone?

Here it is. I apologize for any typos.



From The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John M. Frame (P&R, 1987), pp. 308-309

"œ[The] concept of theological progress raises anew the question of how closely we ought to be tied to our past. Granted, creeds and confessions are necessary, but what sort of allegiance do we owe to them, given our desire to move beyond them [***Lousy typists notes: he refers to contextualizing the Gospel in previous paragraphs] toward new applications?
Clearly, an extrascriptural creed is not infallible, except insofar as it accurately applies the Scriptures. But we have no way of infallibly determining when it does that. Nevertheless, a creed must have some authority, for otherwise it cannot do its job of representing the convictions of a body of believers. Thus our attitude toward our creeds should not be one of indifference. Neither, however, should it be an attitude of subscribing to a creed´s every jot ant tittle, and attitude that binds us to endorse every proposition taught in a confession. Why? Because if we are required to have that attitude towards creeds and confessions, they could never be amended; anyone who advocated change would automatically be a vow-breaker and subject to discipline. To keep them from usurping the role and authority of the Scripture as the church´s ultimate [Frame´s emphasis] standard, creeds and confessions mumustst [Frame´s emphasis] be amendable.
Presbyterian churches have addressed this issue by using ministerial vows that do not speak of any jot-and-tittle subscription but of subscription to the "˜system of doctrine´ taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith and its Catechisms. "˜System of doctrine´ is a vague expression that has given rise to many debates about what properly belongs to the system. The unclarity in this concept has led some to urge the church to define (precisely!) once-and-for-all what belongs to the system and what does not. Rightly, the church has consistently refused to do that. For if it ever did define the "˜system´ precisely, once-and-for-all, it would then be setting forth that system and an absolute, unamendable [Frame´s emphasis] authority. And to do that would, in effect, require "˜jot-and-tittle subscription,´ albeit to a somewhat abbreviated creed. Thus it seems here, as elsewhere in theology, we must be satisfied with vagueness.
The "˜system of doctrine´ is not, however, a totally unworkable concept. Requiring subscription to the "˜system´ means that he who takes the vow must accept the confession as his own confession, by and large, with some minor reservations, if necessary. Whether his reservations are minor or major (that is, whether they transgress the "˜system´) is ultimately for the church courts to decide. The "˜system´ means what a particular session, presbytery, or general assembly says that it means. As long as those courts stand under the authority of God´s Word and therefore under the guidance of His Spirit, they probably will err too greatly. There are no guarantees of perfect judgment here, but that is the nature of life in a finite and sinful world."

To this Frame appends the following footnote: "œEven with "˜jot-and-tittle´ subscription, the church courts would have to make (fallible) judgments as to whether someone was correctly interpreting the jots and tittles to which he has subscribed. It is not clear, then, that "˜strict´ subscription would give us any greater objectivity of judgment than "˜system-of-doctrine´ subscription."

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by wsw201
Plus we need to remember that the Standards are not a lipmus test to determine who is and who is not a Christian.

This is exactly why the comparisons made between Nicea and Westminster ultimately break down. The former is a litmus test; the latter is not.

But you can't get away that easy! If Nicea is a litmus test then are either all Eastern Orthodox unbelievers, or all Western Christians?

I should have said, "The former was designed to be a litmus test; the latter was not."

 

[JohnV]

posted by Fred
In Frame's view (at least as described in DKG), the Church court has no right to deny a man an exception that (in Frame's mind) "goes beyond Scripture." It is not a matter for debate. The Church court is wrong in Frame's opinion if they choose not to grant an exception. But what areas are these? Well, they are fluid, with no written representation - otherwise they would be part of (or absent from) the Confession. Rather than say, "let's take article X out of the Confession," Frame and those like him would rather say, "tehre are things in the Confession that don't really count. I won't make up a list, I won't work through the courts, but I'll tell you when I feel like it which ones don't count. Oh, and you can take that on my say so, since I have no backing of a Church court, or Confession to stand on."

Sounds like mini-Popery to me.

I don't know about Frame. I do know from past experience that the authority breaks down without the Confessional Standards. What we end up with is a kind of dictatorship from the pulpit, with the pastor being the authority on what the Bible says instead of a standard set of doctrines across the board for all. It quickly becomes a kind of tyrrany. The pastor's conscience becomes the standard instead of the Confessions.

Its not that we have to be experts at the Confessional standard to be accepted into the church. We need to know and be prepared for our Christian calling when we become Christians. But the essential is to accept Christ as saviour. I think a lot of people do that without ever considering whether or not there really is a God to be reconciled with; He's just a nebulous concept to them instead of real person. I wouldn't call that being converted. On the other hand, those who truly do accept Christ as saviour are eager to learn all those things that He truly teaches, and not be left to their own wandering thoughts as to the meaning of the Word.

The Confessions are, then, a life-long learning tool, to sit at the feet, so to speak, of all the fathers of the Church in the past, to receive the wisdom of the Word from them, through the means of the Spirit. Let's not forget, that the means that God uses to minister His Word is through men preaching it. If all we need is Scripture, and we don't need the Confessions, then we also don't need preachers either. But the Confessions are the faithful basic sermon notes of the preachers throughout the ages, if you will.

Again, quoting the Confessions is the same thing as quoting the teaching of Scripture; only it is preformulized for us instead of us using our own words. It covers the basics, goes into detail on important matters, and also covers a wide variety of basic applications of Scripture. Its all essential. Its not all necessary to know to become a Christian; it is all essential if we are trying to understand the Bible as the Church has understood it throughout the Church age, right from the time of the Apostles.

To cut ties with that only opens the door to pastors teaching their own views on Scripture, as if they have been granted that kind of authority. They haven't. They are permitted to teach the Scripture because they have shown that they are capable of discerning its teachings arightly. No one has a right to teach on his own authority, or based on his own convictions alone. At least, that's how I understand it.

If a pastor wants to preach a different way of understanding the second commandment because he is convicted of this new way, then he is breaking with the understanding that the majority, and with the considered understanding of the assembled fathers, and going on his own. That is tyranny from the pulpit. If he understands the Scripture, then he will acknowledge the learned fathers of the Church. And each generation has the ability and the calling to verify these standards, because we each have the Word. If there is a difference, then it needs to go through the church's channels to be proper; you can't have people going off on their own.

So I don't see the WCF as being superimposed upon Scripture at all. Sure, some do that, and allow tradition to become the new Scripture for their time, but that's a misuse of the WCF, not a good use of them. Its a misunderstanding, in my view, when this is done; but it is equally a misunderstanding to then turn around and call them the "doctrines of man", as if they have no authority, or as if they are only men's opinions. Both of these undermine the confessional basis of the Church; the WCF represents the Church's witness. If the preacher has authority, then the Confessions have more, since they are the summary of every faithfully Scriptural sermon preached by men. They protect us from tyranny, and do not inculcate it.

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by JohnV]

 

[lwadkins]

In a certain sense, to say that the confessions are fallible (which they are) and proceed from there to the conclusion that they are unreliable, if followed to its ultimate destination would mean that God is unknowable through the Word of God. The essential argument being that it isn't possible to derive reliable conclusions from the study of the Word. I reject that kind of thinking as fallicious

 

[wsw201]

You mention that the Standards are not a litmus test to determine if someone is or is not a Christian.... but some of the doctrines in the Standards are litmus test doctrines! You cannot deny the doctrine of Chapter 2, concerning God, for instance, and still be saved. Yet, as you also point out, many of the doctrines in the Standards are not a "litmus test" that reveals one's status as saved or not.
From what I've seen in evangelicals based upon my education at Moody (an evangelical school for true evangelicals!) and in my experience as a youth pastor in a truly evangelical denomination, the tendency among evangelicals is to declare any doctrine other than those necessary for salvation as being non-essential.
Among semi-Reformed folks, (such as many I've seen at SBTS) they would say that those elements of the Westminster standards that capture the main thrust of reformed theology - God's sovereignty, man's depravity, etc... those are believed to be essentials for being Reformed, while one's position on specific matters such as infant baptism or the RP or the Lord's Day are not. Basically, this is a result of the confusion that results when one believes that holding to Calvinistic soteriology equates with being Reformed. Thus, those doctrines that directly relate to TULIP are often considered "essential" reformed teachings, while those doctrines that do not touch on this are non-essential.

Yes, the Standards do include all the elements of the 3 primary ecuminical creeds because the Church agrees with those creeds in that they believe that they contain exactly what Scripture teaches. But Scripture speaks to so much more than what these original creeds articulated. That is why the Standards speak to so much more of what Scripture teaches and from a Reformed perspective. Therefore the Standards as a whole are a litmus test if you want to be an officer in the Presbyterian Church. PB is essential to being a Reformed Presbyterian as well as the form of government. The Standards were not designed to be a confession for the universal church (though it ought to be!). Lutherans and Anglicans certainly would not subscribe to it.

The fact that the broad evangelical church does not accept the fact that the Standards reflect what Scripture teaches is inconsequential. Most, if not all, do not hold to any type of Creed or Confession at all except for their own personal confession.

But what the Standards are designed for, just as any Creed or Confession is designed for is to:

1. Provide a basis of unity,
2. Serves as a tool for the edification of the Church,
3. Provides an objective standard for discipline,
4. Preservation of orthodoxy ,
5. Serves as a witness to those outside the Church,
6. Provides a criteria by which new teachings arising within the Church can be judged.

This is what the Standards do for the Presbyterian Church.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by JohnV
I don't know about Frame. I do know from past experience that the authority breaks down without the Confessional Standards. What we end up with is a kind of dictatorship from the pulpit, with the pastor being the authority on what the Bible says instead of a standard set of doctrines across the board for all. It quickly becomes a kind of tyrrany. The pastor's conscience becomes the standard instead of the Confessions.

The Confessions are, then, a life-long learning tool, to sit at the feet, so to speak, of all the fathers of the Church in the past, to receive the wisdom of the Word from them, through the means of the Spirit. Let's not forget, that the means that God uses to minister His Word is through men preaching it. If all we need is Scripture, and we don't need the Confessions, then we also don't need preachers either. But the Confessions are the faithful basic sermon notes of the preachers throughout the ages, if you will.

Again, quoting the Confessions is the same thing as quoting the teaching of Scripture; only it is preformulized for us instead of us using our own words. It covers the basics, goes into detail on important matters, and also covers a wide variety of basic applications of Scripture. Its all essential. Its not all necessary to know to become a Christian; it is all essential if we are trying to understand the Bible as the Church has understood it throughout the Church age, right from the time of the Apostles.

To cut ties with that only opens the door to pastors teaching their own views on Scripture, as if they have been granted that kind of authority. They haven't. They are permitted to teach the Scripture because they have shown that they are capable of discerning its teachings arightly. No one has a right to teach on his own authority, or based on his own convictions alone. At least, that's how I understand it.

So I don't see the WCF as being superimposed upon Scripture at all. Sure, some do that, and allow tradition to become the new Scripture for their time, but that's a misuse of the WCF, not a good use of them. Its a misunderstanding, in my view, when this is done; but it is equally a misunderstanding to then turn around and call them the "doctrines of man", as if they have no authority, or as if they are only men's opinions. Both of these undermine the confessional basis of the Church; the WCF represents the Church's witness. If the preacher has authority, then the Confessions have more, since they are the summary of every faithfully Scriptural sermon preached by men. They protect us from tyranny, and do not inculcate it.

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by JohnV]

John,

I think we are in total agreement (well, almost), simply approaching the questions from two different angles. I do not know if would want to say that quoting the Confessions is the same as quoting the Scriptures without making a LOT of qualifications...so many in fact that it would be simpler to say that we believe the Confessions embody the correct understanding of them.

 

[JohnV]

John,

I think we are in total agreement (well, almost), simply approaching the questions from two different angles. I do not know if would want to say that quoting the Confessions is the same as quoting the Scriptures without making a LOT of qualifications...so many in fact that it would be simpler to say that we believe the Confessions embody the correct understanding of them.

Kevin:
Fair enough. But I would not say that the Confessions contain anything added to the Scriptures by man either. Everything it teaches is well grounded in the Word of God. We are again back to wondering what you mean by "a LOT of qualifications". It is a command of God for fathers to witness the faith to their children. And the Church has had to deal with many variations on the teachings of the Word of God. The Confessions are the culmination of all those ecclesiastical decisions, of all those strugglings, and of all the subsequent generations who have revisited the controversies. They all concur on what the Word of God teaches, and that is summarized for us in the Confessions. None of it is the teaching of men, or it would not be allowed to be in the Confessions.

A man, no matter what his standing in the church, may not stand on the pulpit and preach a particular millennial view as a necessary Biblical doctrine, or a new view on justification, or his perticular apologetic approach, or any other thing that is left to the liberty of each believer's conscience. If he thinks he has that kind of authority, then we have the Confessions to help us to stand up to him and his dictatorial methods, for the Church does not impose these things. He may think they're Biblical, but that is no basis for preaching these views. He does not licence himself; he is duly licenced by the church, and the church is duly instituted by Christ. So the Church has not made monumental decisions in the Spirit only to throw them out at the next generation, or when the furor subsides, but stores them up for succeeding generations as a continuing witness of the Church's faithfulness to the Word of God. A man cannot lightly toss that aside, or any part of it. If he has diffuculty with some of it, then there are avenues to take. But he may not take authority upon himself that is not his.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by wsw201

You mention that the Standards are not a litmus test to determine if someone is or is not a Christian.... but some of the doctrines in the Standards are litmus test doctrines! You cannot deny the doctrine of Chapter 2, concerning God, for instance, and still be saved. Yet, as you also point out, many of the doctrines in the Standards are not a "litmus test" that reveals one's status as saved or not.
From what I've seen in evangelicals based upon my education at Moody (an evangelical school for true evangelicals!) and in my experience as a youth pastor in a truly evangelical denomination, the tendency among evangelicals is to declare any doctrine other than those necessary for salvation as being non-essential.
Among semi-Reformed folks, (such as many I've seen at SBTS) they would say that those elements of the Westminster standards that capture the main thrust of reformed theology - God's sovereignty, man's depravity, etc... those are believed to be essentials for being Reformed, while one's position on specific matters such as infant baptism or the RP or the Lord's Day are not. Basically, this is a result of the confusion that results when one believes that holding to Calvinistic soteriology equates with being Reformed. Thus, those doctrines that directly relate to TULIP are often considered "essential" reformed teachings, while those doctrines that do not touch on this are non-essential.

Yes, the Standards do include all the elements of the 3 primary ecuminical creeds because the Church agrees with those creeds in that they believe that they contain exactly what Scripture teaches. But Scripture speaks to so much more than what these original creeds articulated. That is why the Standards speak to so much more of what Scripture teaches and from a Reformed perspective. Therefore the Standards as a whole are a litmus test if you want to be an officer in the Presbyterian Church. PB is essential to being a Reformed Presbyterian as well as the form of government. The Standards were not designed to be a confession for the universal church (though it ought to be!). Lutherans and Anglicans certainly would not subscribe to it.

The fact that the broad evangelical church does not accept the fact that the Standards reflect what Scripture teaches is inconsequential. Most, if not all, do not hold to any type of Creed or Confession at all except for their own personal confession.

But what the Standards are designed for, just as any Creed or Confession is designed for is to:

1. Provide a basis of unity,
2. Serves as a tool for the edification of the Church,
3. Provides an objective standard for discipline,
4. Preservation of orthodoxy ,
5. Serves as a witness to those outside the Church,
6. Provides a criteria by which new teachings arising within the Church can be judged.

This is what the Standards do for the Presbyterian Church.

Ok... I agree... are you disagreeing with my observation or were you just expanding upon them? You did ask what the "nonessentials" are... I offered an explanation of the types of things that many would say are "nonessential." In that sense the opinion of evangelicals is not inconsequential, because their opinion is (I thought) precisely what you were asking for in wanting to know what the "nonessentials" are! Perhaps we're just having communication difficulties... But I don't disagree with your statements, and I don't think that you disagree with my assessment...

 

[wsw201]

Ben,

No I don't disagree with your comments about what the broader evangelical world would consider non-essential and it is probably a communication problem! I included the comment on what a confession and creed is suppose to do just for general edification. Note that one of the things that it doesn't do is replace Scripture.

What I was attempting to get at was what was non-essential to believe regarding the Standards ( doesn't really matter if you believe it or not), for an officer in the Presbyterian Church since only officers are required to subscribe. For example, is the covenantal structure non-essential (CoW & CoG)? How about Oaths and Vows? Marriage and Divorce? This is the argument that is going on in the PCA right now (and went on in the PCUSA at the turn of the 20th century).

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by JohnV

Kevin:
Fair enough. But I would not say that the Confessions contain anything added to the Scriptures by man either. Everything it teaches is well grounded in the Word of God. We are again back to wondering what you mean by "a LOT of qualifications". It is a command of God for fathers to witness the faith to their children. And the Church has had to deal with many variations on the teachings of the Word of God. The Confessions are the culmination of all those ecclesiastical decisions, of all those strugglings, and of all the subsequent generations who have revisited the controversies. They all concur on what the Word of God teaches, and that is summarized for us in the Confessions. None of it is the teaching of men, or it would not be allowed to be in the Confessions.

A man, no matter what his standing in the church, may not stand on the pulpit and preach a particular millennial view as a necessary Biblical doctrine, or a new view on justification, or his perticular apologetic approach, or any other thing that is left to the liberty of each believer's conscience. If he thinks he has that kind of authority, then we have the Confessions to help us to stand up to him and his dictatorial methods, for the Church does not impose these things. He may think they're Biblical, but that is no basis for preaching these views. He does not licence himself; he is duly licenced by the church, and the church is duly instituted by Christ. So the Church has not made monumental decisions in the Spirit only to throw them out at the next generation, or when the furor subsides, but stores them up for succeeding generations as a continuing witness of the Church's faithfulness to the Word of God. A man cannot lightly toss that aside, or any part of it. If he has diffuculty with some of it, then there are avenues to take. But he may not take authority upon himself that is not his.

Qualifications again would being ensuring that people understood the that the Bible was the Bible and not the Confessions. I say this as one who holds to the Confessions.

I agree with your ecclesiology, your pneumatology, and your bibliology as well as with your stand on the Confessions. My only criticism (one which could be as easily leveled at ANY denomination) is that we all tend to be a little myopic. By that I mean that we ASSUME that the monumental decisions made in the Spirit (as you put it) by the Westminster Divines were, in fact, made in the Spirit and are, in fact, correct. But then again, so does every other church that subscribes to any kind of creed. So who's to say who's right? Sola scriptura! The Bible informs our beliefs and not the other way around...and that is the only point I have endeavored, poorly, to make. Let me stress once again, I agree with you...I'm just saying that we must always stand ready to re-evaluate our creed in the light of the Scriptures. The PCA recognizes this and allows for the Standards to be ammended or changed (BCO 26-3).

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I don't have my copy of DKG anymore (I saw no need to keep it, since I found it of so little worth) so perhaps someone could actually post the relevant section on subscription. That way it is not my summary only. It is easily found, in the index under subscription, and the whole passage is like a page long.

Anyone?

Here it is. I apologize for any typos.

Fred, after all that typing you made me do when I should have been studying, I shall be very disappointed if you don't respond!

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I don't have my copy of DKG anymore (I saw no need to keep it, since I found it of so little worth) so perhaps someone could actually post the relevant section on subscription. That way it is not my summary only. It is easily found, in the index under subscription, and the whole passage is like a page long.

Anyone?

Here it is. I apologize for any typos.



From The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John M. Frame (P&R, 1987), pp. 308-309

"œ[The] concept of theological progress raises anew the question of how closely we ought to be tied to our past. Granted, creeds and confessions are necessary, but what sort of allegiance do we owe to them, given our desire to move beyond them [***Lousy typists notes: he refers to contextualizing the Gospel in previous paragraphs] toward new applications?
Clearly, an extrascriptural creed is not infallible, except insofar as it accurately applies the Scriptures. But we have no way of infallibly determining when it does that. Nevertheless, a creed must have some authority, for otherwise it cannot do its job of representing the convictions of a body of believers. Thus our attitude toward our creeds should not be one of indifference. Neither, however, should it be an attitude of subscribing to a creed´s every jot ant tittle, and attitude that binds us to endorse every proposition taught in a confession. Why? Because if we are required to have that attitude towards creeds and confessions, they could never be amended; anyone who advocated change would automatically be a vow-breaker and subject to discipline. To keep them from usurping the role and authority of the Scripture as the church´s ultimate [Frame´s emphasis] standard, creeds and confessions mumustst [Frame´s emphasis] be amendable.
Presbyterian churches have addressed this issue by using ministerial vows that do not speak of any jot-and-tittle subscription but of subscription to the "˜system of doctrine´ taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith and its Catechisms. "˜System of doctrine´ is a vague expression that has given rise to many debates about what properly belongs to the system. The unclarity in this concept has led some to urge the church to define (precisely!) once-and-for-all what belongs to the system and what does not. Rightly, the church has consistently refused to do that. For if it ever did define the "˜system´ precisely, once-and-for-all, it would then be setting forth that system and an absolute, unamendable [Frame´s emphasis] authority. And to do that would, in effect, require "˜jot-and-tittle subscription,´ albeit to a somewhat abbreviated creed. Thus it seems here, as elsewhere in theology, we must be satisfied with vagueness.
The "˜system of doctrine´ is not, however, a totally unworkable concept. Requiring subscription to the "˜system´ means that he who takes the vow must accept the confession as his own confession, by and large, with some minor reservations, if necessary. Whether his reservations are minor or major (that is, whether they transgress the "˜system´) is ultimately for the church courts to decide. The "˜system´ means what a particular session, presbytery, or general assembly says that it means. As long as those courts stand under the authority of God´s Word and therefore under the guidance of His Spirit, they probably will err too greatly. There are no guarantees of perfect judgment here, but that is the nature of life in a finite and sinful world."

To this Frame appends the following footnote: "œEven with "˜jot-and-tittle´ subscription, the church courts would have to make (fallible) judgments as to whether someone was correctly interpreting the jots and tittles to which he has subscribed. It is not clear, then, that "˜strict´ subscription would give us any greater objectivity of judgment than "˜system-of-doctrine´ subscription."

Kevin:

Two things. First, if you agree with all my 'tologies, then there's nothing to fight about anymore. I have to quit.

Actually, I am always glad to know that we agree on matters when it comes down to the crunch. It's been good to get some of this stuff out for people to read and react to.

Secondly, if I may, I'd like to react to the above quote from Frame. I've read only a little of Frame's work, and am only familiar with him somewhat. It's enough to consider him likely the best defender of Presuppositionalism around, past or present. But I am familiar with this line of reasoning, as I've run into it in the past in the CRC. He's not the first to think this way.

It's fine to a point, but there is one big objection (and one smaller one) to this, and that is that this undermines the role that the Confessions play in the church, and the duties of the office-bearers to fidelity under their calling. A Confession represents the church's statement of faith, collectively. For the sake of unity, an office-bearer ought not to go beyond or beside it in any way that is open. He must keep it quiet, and take up the matter with his peers in the church.

One reason for this is the burden placed upon the office-bearer to maintain unity in the church. If he is minded to think another way on a matter from the Confession, then it is plain that it is a matter of difference, not of straying from Scripture on the part of the church, and so is no reason for causing a rift of any kind over his sentiments. If he publicly vocalizes his sentiments, and stirring up dissension over it, then he is causing a rift unnecessarily. It is not a matter of departure from Scripture on that particular matter, it is only a difference of understandings. When it causes a rift, then it becomes a matter of departure from Scripture, but the matter itself is only secondary anymore because the stirring up is the crux of the matter now.

Secondly, an office-bearer in the church may not use his office, and certainly not the place of the preaching of the Word, the pulpit, as an unfair advantage in the debate. He may not unfairly add a "voice of authority", an aura of being backed up by Christ Himself, on a matter the church has not given him leave to do so. He is differing with the standard of faith carefully adopted by the church, and it is not a departure from Scripture that is in question. To use the respect due to him and his office as a point of imposition is an abuse of office.

Let's say that the minister of the Word wants to impress upon his congregation his views on Presuppositionalism. So he preaches a series of sermons on The Biblical Necessity of Presuppositionalism. Now, Presuppositionalism is an acceptable view to hold in his denomination, but it is clearly not a teaching the Bible demands, nor one the church has mandated, nor one that is settled in any way. This minister has made the decision on his own. And to quell those in the congregation who are of a different mind, he has used his office and the respect due to him as a minister of the Word, and has used the place of the preaching of the Word, to voice things which are not commanded him to preach, and for which he has been given no licence. As a matter of fact, the Confessions forbid him to do this. He has broken covenant, in fact, but using his office as an unfair advantage, to say the least. And that is not what his office is for. He is not to think of himself more highly than anyone else, opinions notwithstanding.

So that is a major objection to Frame's point of view, in that he opens the door to the use of the offices as an unfair advantage, of imposing the free conscience of an office-bearer upon the free consciences of his congregation. In fact, it is a formula for dissension, as I see it, and as actual experience has led me to believe.

But there is a smaller objection too. And that is it makes too much a point out of the fact that the Confessions are limited in scope, and that they stand only on the authority of Scripture and not on their own. It is true, but it takes the focus off the fact that these teachings have withstood the tests of time and experience, and that the attempt to change it is only an attempt to become more Biblical, and not to take advantage of the freedoms within the Confessional standards. Frame wants to emphasize the latter, it seems to me, at the cost of the former.

Well, that's my view from my limited understanding. To summarize, Frame makes sense, but he doesn't really say a whole lot that is helpful in the matter of the union and freedom we have under this standard. But I am going just by what you quoted; I don't have the whole context.

 

[kevin.carroll]

One of the unfortuntate results of my fundamentalist upbringing is my penchant for knee-jerk theological outbursts, rather than carefully reasoned ones. I'm still mulling over this thread and I realized that I seem to hold two competing positions.

On the one hand, I have argued for a creedal position that holds the creeds as subservient to and commentaries on the Scriptures. As such, they are always open to review and change, if necessary. Here the Standards seem to agree:

"WCF 31.4 All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both."

But on the other hand, while I would say, we should always stand ready to re-evaluate our creeds on the basis of our understanding of Scripture, I would never, EVER, want to revisit Nicea or Chalcedon.

So does this make me hypocritical? Theologically schizophrenic? A victim of poor up-bringing? I'd welcome thoughts.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
One of the unfortuntate results of my fundamentalist upbringing is my penchant for knee-jerk theological outbursts, rather than carefully reasoned ones. I'm still mulling over this thread and I realized that I seem to hold two competing positions.

On the one hand, I have argued for a creedal position that holds the creeds as subservient to and commentaries on the Scriptures. As such, they are always open to review and change, if necessary. Here the Standards seem to agree:

"WCF 31.4 All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both."

But on the other hand, while I would say, we should always stand ready to re-evaluate our creeds on the basis of our understanding of Scripture, I would never, EVER, want to revisit Nicea or Chalcedon.

So does this make me hypocritical? Theologically schizophrenic? A victim of poor up-bringing? I'd welcome thoughts.

No. It just makes you more sure of the doctrine of Nicea and Chalcedon than the WCF. That's not hypocritical, although it may be wrong. After all, we do agree that Nicea was in need of amendment - that is where the filioque clause comes in.

 

[JohnV]

Belgic Confession, art. VII (again)

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.

So Kevin, unless you see the Confessions as schizophrenic in themselves, you don't really hold such a dichotomy. They themselves attest to the limitations of man's writings. That's not the point of the Confessions, or the Creeds, for that matter. It's the teachings that they teach, not the writings in themselves. They represent an accumulation of the Church's heritage and scholarship in the Word, both of which are commanded by the Word.

But how can you see the Confessions at odd with Nicea or Chalcedon? They aren't. They're better, actually, since they've had the time and circumstance to correct, elucidate, and advance the teachings of Nicea and Chalcedon. So it's just like Fred said, I would think. But he knows a whole lot more about it than I do.