Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Does anyone ever get the impression when talking to people in the Reformed community that they almost treat the WCF as infallible? Often one hears such-and-such a view condemned because it is 'un-confessional'. However, does not the WCF itself forbid this attitude? From my reading of the WCF it allows for the Confession to be revised in light of Scripture. It says:
All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both. (31:4) This surely most include the Westminster Assembly itself.
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (1:8) Therefore condemning a position because it is un-confessional is itself un-confessional.
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (1:10). The supreme judge is not the WCF, to condemn something merely because it contradicts the WCF is therefore against the WCF.
In light of this, should positions like Theonomy and not believing in a Papal anti-Christ, merely be condemned because they contradict the WCF (I do not believe Theonomy does contradict the WCF, but that is besides the point)?
All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both. (31:4) This surely most include the Westminster Assembly itself.
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (1:8) Therefore condemning a position because it is un-confessional is itself un-confessional.
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (1:10). The supreme judge is not the WCF, to condemn something merely because it contradicts the WCF is therefore against the WCF.
In light of this, should positions like Theonomy and not believing in a Papal anti-Christ, merely be condemned because they contradict the WCF (I do not believe Theonomy does contradict the WCF, but that is besides the point)?
Last edited: