WCF Vs Blind WCF Following

Status
Not open for further replies.

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)?

:deadhorse:
 
Last edited:
For those who subscribe to the Westminster Standards, which are usually officers in a confessional Presbyterian Church (PCUSA excluded), are saying that what the Standards say is what the Scriptures teach on a particular subject, be it the Laws of God the status of the Pope, Justification or Scripture itself. As you have noted, the Standards are not Scripture but that does not mean that the Church can't rely on them as a faithful interpretation of Scripture. In fact that's one of the reasons why we have them so everyone within the church can be on the same page.

Otherwise everyone would have their own personal opinion. The Church could not say whether tht opinion is right or wrong resulting in each person being their own little denomination.

The Scriptures are the Supreme judge and if one believes that the Standards do properly reflect what Scripture teaches then there shouldn't be a problem using the Standards. If one does not believe that the Standards are true to Scripture then you should not subscribe to them or make every attempt to change them. And the Standards have been changed since 1647.
 
I agree, Wayne. One must be careful not to use that reasoning to undermine the unity that the Confessions represent, using their inferiority to Scripture as a ground to individualize them to each person's interpretation. They are the Church's credo as a whole, and as such also for each member.

Our church asks each member to confess, to continue in, and to submit to the "true and complete doctrine of salvation" which is found in the Old and New Testaments, summarized in the Confessions, and taught here in this Christian church.

Things like Theonomy or particular millennial views are not taught there, but may be held as personal views within that boundary. As such they should never be confused with confessed doctrine.
 
And there is also the issue, not quite as serious but still annoying, when someone brings a new, tough ethical issue to the floor and is responded to by 200 pages, copy and paste, from various confessions.
 
But I am not bashing the WCF. I remember one time at seminary I quoted the Confession and WLC on the law of God--but I didn't say what I quoted-- and a student responded "Nuh-uh, theonomy is false!" :lol:
 
When we appeal to the Standards (as previously stated) we are using pre-approved "shorthand". We are stating: "This point really isn't up for a variety of interpretations, unless we need to take the conversation BACK another step, and call the Constitution (of our denomination) into question at that point." And frankly, that's an incredibly serious step to take.

Can you imagine, today, if we all the sudden had to fight the Arian question again? (not the modern JWs, who are not INSIDE our churches today) Seriously, the word TRINITY is not in the Bible--so, is the question about Jesus' divine identity up for debate whenever it's questioned? Is it deficient to say, "That question is settled for Christians, and if you do question it you also need to question your claim to be 'Christian', until it is answered"? I think that's not deficient.

Because the Arians wanted to be called "Christians" too. But in the end, they lost that right. The disciples of Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch. And while the Arian dispute was ongoing, all sides were claiming the name "Christian." The Arians came to be called Arians after losing the name Christian.

Many times, a person may be ignorant concerning the "official" position of their church. We are prone to be quick affirmers of whatever interpretation of the Bible comes into our little heads, without ever consulting the collective mind of the church. So, it might be an eye openner to tell someone "the church has already thought long and hard about that." They may want to go back and see the arguments they never knew about.

Sometimes the argument goes: "The Confession isn't clear, or the Confession is open to other interpretations at that point." The first option is mostly a smoke screen, because generally if it was important enough to write down, then the framers were already clear. The second option usually contains the idea that the words were written to accommodate divergent views. Even if this was a true interpretation (debatable), the fact is that the same formula set the LIMITS of Confessional agreement, not the MINIMUM needed to find agreement. The Confession is written to define truth, so as to exclude errors. It is not a "wax nose".

Its much simpler for someone to just own that he differs from the Confession at this or that point. For some reason (usually because they are worried about sanctions, formal or informal) people tend to gloss over their deviations, desiring to be accepted without any qualifications. Thus, dishonesty flourishes. It may have been GaryNorth who most recently pointed out (Crossed Fingers) that dishonesty in one area of Confessional subscription, crippled the church in imposing sanctions when liberals used the same arguments to create room for themselves.

Doctrinally, those Standards define who we are, and within our internal discourse, they may certainly be appealed to, because on them we have already defined our "common ground understanding." If that's not understood, so much the worse for the argument.
 
I like the way you put that Bruce (as usual).

I'm always interested to hear stories of people that tightly subscribe to the Confession in a supposed "slavish" sense - the man who knows the WCF but not the Scriptures. I've honestly never met one yet although my experience of a thing does not make it so.

I have met a lot of men who make this kind of argument when the WCF is stepping on their toes to define a doctrine that is in contradiction to the Confession.

You failed to mention, Daniel, that while the Confession does not claim infallibility it still doesn't say: "...and therefore we urge each and every man to decide what Scripture teaches for themselves...."

It still remains to synods and councils to reform the Confessions. This is not on Biblical but it's obvious.

Let me ask you a question Daniel? Where is the Confession wrong in how it confesses the interpretation of the Scriptures and by what authority am I to accept your interpretation of the Scriptures?

Let's say that your issue is Theonomy. We've both studied the Word and I agree with the WCF framers but you agree with Bahnsen. Who's right? Are we both right? Are we permitted to go our own way and start our own Churches - on one corner the "OPC of Theonomy" and the "OPC that doesn't teach Theonomy". By the way, that's not a joke - that's something that happens in real life.

Dr. R. Scott Clark is absolutely correct: Every heretic claims to use Scripture. What role does the Church have to Confess a doctrine? That is the question not enough muse over. To many the WCF is confessed by them because they have personally granted it that authority. The moment they study the Word on their own and come to a differing conclusion, they are willing to lop off portions, add portions, or in the case of the Federal Vision, completely misrepresent what the WCF teaches.

Thus, for me, I take a lot of stock in the statement: this view is un-Confessional. It's another way of saying: the Reformed Church throughout history has interpreted the Scriptures this way, I agree with them, and I think you should not be so hasty to think that the sun rises and sets on your understanding of the Scriptures. Take care that you stand lest you fall.
 
I think one of the problems you see today with the handling of the confessions is the attempt to micro-manage what the church believes and teaches.

E.g, the confessions are very good at defining true biblical Christianity vs. Romanism or Arianism or Arminianism. When people press the confessions in order to slice and dice theology at a micro level, they get into a lot more trouble and end up "de-confessionalizing" otherwise solidly reformed brethren.

I think the confessions were written to permit as many men to subscribe them in good faith within the broadest categories of reformed traditions (as opposed to Lutheran or Roman Catholic or Anabaptist). Modern churchmen sometimes have gone too far in their zeal to explain the “true meaning” of the confessional language, and in doing so twist the real meaning from the confessions.

It reminds me of the scene in Annie Hall when Alvy and Annie are standing in line at the movie theater listening to this man – a teacher of a class in TV, Media and Culture -- going on and on about media, invoking Marshall McLuhan. Alvy wishes that in this type of situation you could appeal to the source, and pulls McLuhan out of the wings, who proceeds to respond to the man's pontificating with the line, "I heard what you were saying. You, you know nothing of my work. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing".

To which Alvy replies, “Boy, if life were only like this.”

Professional theologians strike me just that way at times.
 
Let's also keep in mind that Bahnsen taught a course on the Confession and gave many arguemtns in defense of its use in the guiding the church. you can aqcuire those at CMF. And in Bahnsen's message, "Law and Disgrace" (arguably the finest piece of rhetoric on the internet) he bemoaned the defection from the WCF.

I just don't want people to pit Bahnsen vs. the Confession.
 
Rich

Bahnsen (like myself) claimed to agree with the WCF framers (that only the 'general equity' or justice of the judicial law remains binding), though it should be kept in mind that there was not 100% agreement among the Westminster Divines on the civil law.

My point is that when an issue is brought to the floor of a church court, the person is to be condemned only after an honest exegetical study of Scripture, not the WCF, otherwise we violate Sola Scriptura. This is not to be disrespectful to the WCF, but to be like the Bereans and to test everything by Scripture - which is what the Westminster Divines would want us to do. If something in the WCF is found to be unbiblical it should be revised; however, this does not mean that we abandon the whole Confession, instead we modify it to bring it into closer conformity to Scripture. This, surely, is what the church of the Scottish Second Reformation did when they dropped the Scots Confession in favour of the WCF. If they could make an improvement, after studying the word of God, then why can't we. This is not a call for ecclesiastical anarchy, but for the Reformed Church to seriously re-consider some issues (such as a belief in Papal Antichrist - I think it is hard to defend the dogmatic way in which the WCF asserts this). If we don't allow for revision, then what difference is their between ourselves and the Steelites, who condemn anyone (in fact, wont have fellowship with anyone) who does not agree with EVERYTHING that the 2nd Reformation Church agreed to (including the historicist interpretation of Revelation).

Tom

I think your comments are excellent; the Westminster Divines were not a monolithic body, and there would seem to be certain statements in the Confession which accommodate a variety of views (eg the 'general equity' clause WCF 19:4).

Everyone else

Thanks for your input brethren.

:detective:
 
Last edited:
Tom,

I'm not quite sure what you are saying (I never saw Annie Hall. I thought Woody Allen's earlier stuff was funnier) but I don't think the Divines were attempting to write the Standards in such a way that it could be interpreted any way a person might want to and be considered Reformed. Armyaldians were at the Assembly but I don't think we would consider them within the bounds.

I think one of the problems we have today is that the Standards are being turned into a wax nose. As Presbyterians, we do not subscribe to the "Reformed Traditions", whatever that means, but the the Westminster Standards. We also don't subscribe to our favorite Reformed Guru, which is a very popular thing to do these days. Calvin, Hodge, Murray and Edwards are great teachers and were right about a lot of things but were not right about everything. They are not the Church. Plus the fact that Joe Puritan was at the Assembly and believed X and the Standards say Y does not mean that X is within the "Bounds". As I recall, only the Church of Scotland required subscription to the Standards. I am not sure if any officer in the Church of England actually had to subscribe, especially when the King came back into power. Actually having to subscribe is where the rubber meets the road regardless of intent.

In my humble opinion, we should start by taking the Standards at face value, ie; the Divines wrote down exactly what they meant! I don't think we have to go through various "hermaneutical" gymnastics to understand the Standards.
 
Daniel,

The WCF version that the OPC and PCA subscribe to addressed the Papal-AntiChrist issue.
 
Oh yes, I should add that I do not condone a man swearing to a confession of faith if he does not agree with everything in it. The reason why I would not accept office at the present time is because of a scruple over WCF 25:6 - especially when it says that the Pope of Rome is 'in the church' (surely Rome is a synagogue of Satan and not a true church of Jesus Christ).

Furthermore, what happens if a man swears to the WCF in good conscience, but then, years later, discovers something he is not sure about. Does he ignore it? Or does he ask his church to investigate the matter further?

:handshake:
 
????????

Oh yes, I should add that I do not condone a man swearing to a confession of faith if he does not agree with everything in it. The reason why I would not accept office at the present time is because of a scruple over WCF 25:6 - especially when it says that the Pope of Rome is 'in the church' (surely Rome is a synagogue of Satan and not a true church of Jesus Christ).

Where does the WCF say that the "Pope is 'in the church?'" I looked up 25:6 and found no such statement. Are you understanding "catholic church" to mean "Roman Catholic Church?" If so, that is not the case.

Please forgive me if made a wrong assumption here. I just can't see in the whole of WCF 25 any reference to the pope or the Roman Catholic Church (minus the indirect reference to all churches that can be"synagogues of satan" in 10,11).

Here is a copy of the WCF. Perhaps you can help me to see what you are referring to regarding the pope..

Chapter XXV
Of the Church
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]
 
Sonya

WCF 25:6 (in the original) reads:

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

I hope this is of some help.

:um:
 
I hope it is evident to all that there is also such a thing as "Scripture Vs Blind Scripture Following."

As for the Antichrist being in the church, it is self-evident. Mr. Ritchie, you have made a mistake by equating "church" with "true church."
 
Mr Winzer

Could you please show me where the WCF makes that distinction in the text concerning the papacy? In fact it says that 'there is no other head of the (true) church but the Lord Jesus Christ' but then goes on to say that the pope 'exalts himself, in the church' - which would appear to indicate that the same church is being talked about.

The only church is the true church; Rome is not a church but a synagogue of Satan. Here, I believe, the language of the WCF is not as careful as it should be.

However, most arguments that I have heard in favour of the papal antichrist view, have argued that the reference to the man of sin exalting himself in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2) refers to the pope exalting himself in the church. I must reject this interpretation because if the temple of God is the church (which, in that context, I don't believe it is), then it cannot refer to the papacy, as the pope is not in the church.
 
Last edited:
I hope it is evident to all that there is also such a thing as "Scripture Vs Blind Scripture Following."

As for the Antichrist being in the church, it is self-evident. Mr. Ritchie, you have made a mistake by equating "church" with "true church."

Mr. Winzer,

Since the confession never uses the word "church" except to indicate a "true church", yours seems like an interpretation of the confession. Perhaps that is an acceptable position, although I'm doubtful:


There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

Are we to understand that the original confession is equivocating on the meaning of "the church" in a single paragraph?

If it is acceptable, then my earlier comment is validated to a degree.
 
Mr. Ritchie, as Presbyterians we recognise the word "church" can be used in various ways and must be understood according to context. The church in which the Pope sits is the professing church. It is clear this is what the WCF means from the fact that the statement concerning the antichrist follows immediately after section 5, which speaks of churches under heaven being subject to mixture and error. Every professing church must be judged according to the nature of its teaching. On the basis of what it teaches we are able to discern whether its profession is true or false. So we speak generally of the professing church and specifically of true or false churches. Those who claim to be the church but speak falsely are not non-churches but false-churches.

Concerning the interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 -- it would be naive to suppose that this passage is undisputed amongst sound commentators. For myself, it suffices that the apostle speaks of "opposing counsel" as sitting in the "temple." Whether we understand the Pope as the fulfilment or an application of what the apostle foretells, is irrelevant. What matters is that the WCF provides a sound biblical principle wherewith to evaluate the claims of the Pope to be the head of the church. We should avoid understanding the Confession as providing a prophetic interpretation. 25:6 is a proposition relative to ecclesiology, not eschatology. Blessings!
 
Rich

Bahnsen (like myself) claimed to agree with the WCF framers (that only the 'general equity' or justice of the judicial law remains binding), though it should be kept in mind that there was not 100% agreement among the Westminster Divines on the civil law.

My point is that when an issue is brought to the floor of a church court, the person is to be condemned only after an honest exegetical study of Scripture, not the WCF, otherwise we violate Sola Scriptura. This is not to be disrespectful to the WCF, but to be like the Bereans and to test everything by Scripture - which is what the Westminster Divines would want us to do. If something in the WCF is found to be unbiblical it should be revised; however, this does not mean that we abandon the whole Confession, instead we modify it to bring it into closer conformity to Scripture. This, surely, is what the church of the Scottish Second Reformation did when they dropped the Scots Confession in favour of the WCF. If they could make an improvement, after studying the word of God, then why can't we. This is not a call for ecclesiastical anarchy, but for the Reformed Church to seriously re-consider some issues (such as a belief in Papal Antichrist - I think it is hard to defend the dogmatic way in which the WCF asserts this). If we don't allow for revision, then what difference is their between ourselves and the Steelites, who condemn anyone (in fact, wont have fellowship with anyone) who does not agree with EVERYTHING that the 2nd Reformation Church agreed to (including the historicist interpretation of Revelation).

Tom

I think your comments are excellent; the Westminster Divines were not a monolithic body, and there would seem to be certain statements in the Confession which accommodate a variety of views (eg the 'general equity' clause WCF 19:4).

Everyone else

Thanks for your input brethren.

:detective:

Daniel,

Did you completely miss the part where I said that the Confessions can be reformed? The point is that we each don't have the role to reform it ourselves. Is your argument that each man gets to decide where the WCF is authoratative and where it is not? The Church has an authoratative (yet fallible) role in Confessing the Word. From the Pastor who declares the Word of God to the Church that Confesses the doctrines of Scripture, we are not all on the same plane of authority with respect to the truth of the Scriptures. The Church is not infallible but it still has the role in settling controversies unless you wish to announce you do not subscribe to the WCF at that point.

I use this example regularly. If a man is caught in the act of adultery, it simply does not do for him to say: "Well, that's your interpretation of the Scripture because you're blindly bound to a tradition. My interpretation is that sleeping with lots of women is perfectly fine."

With some ideas about Confessionalism that I see here, the effective answer of the Session would have to be: "Ah, well, we cannot bind your conscience then because you're convinced in your mind that the Scriptures teach this is OK."

As for Bahnsen, it was an example. Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that a theonomic view of the Scriptures is not doctrine according to the WCF. One of the great things about the WCF is that it *does* bound the things that ministers should be able to bind the consciences of men with. If theonomy is not in the WCF then, frankly, it can be given as an opinion of an individual minister but it is not the doctrine of the Church. Some men seem to forget this. They go to Seminary, glom on to a framework hypothesis, or a redemptive historical approach, or a theonomic perspective and then they define their new congregations by pet doctrines that are not found in the WCF.

Now, properly speaking, are they allowed to hold to those views? In some cases, yes. The question is: Is it proper for them to be making new types of Presbyterians within the Presbyterian Church? I've met more than a few new "Reformed" people who have scarcely studied the WCF but are already saying how much they are into theonomy.

This is not a Bahnsen bashing exercise but, for those who like him, just remember what we're talking about here. It's not that the doctrine is outside the bounds of what we can believe and still be Confessional but some are importing their opinions of the text and then saying to those unconvinced, this is now a doctrine of this Church. Those otherwise convicted either have their consciences now bound or are forced to go to another congregation. In at least one case some have been brought under Church discipline for not submitting to such views.

I don't care if it's a strong BT or Theonomic perspective, until the Church has Confessed it as doctrine just remember what the ministers have sworn to uphold and teach as CONFESSED by the Church.

In the end, this is all about liberty of Conscience. If I have to worry about every guy that rolls into a new Presbyterian Church and wonder: "Well, what does the WCF mean to you?" that is just a crazy recipe for unity.

Finally, why is it not permissible for the Federal Vision to be un-Confessional on certain points of doctrine while it is OK for us to be for our pet doctrine? Do you suppose some of them probably ask that question? I imagine some of them found it to be the height of hypocrisy for many of the men that raised their hands at Presbytery that they know give lip service to the Confession except when it suits their needs to keep the doctrine out that they don't want.

I find it fascinating how so many "conservatives" will talk about the Federalist Papers and the framer's intent for the Constitution but, when it comes to the WCF, well that's a different story. On the one hand they want Pagans to be faithful to the vows on the U.S. Constitution while they lead the way in being unfaithful to the vows on a Constitution for Christ's Church!
 
I find it fascinating how so many "conservatives" will talk about the Federalist Papers and the framer's intent for the Constitution but, when it comes to the WCF, well that's a different story. On the one hand they want Pagans to be faithful to the vows on the U.S. Constitution while they lead the way in being unfaithful to the vows on a Constitution for Christ's Church!

That's a good point. I know a few historians who have written books to that affect: Marsden and Hart (although Hart pushes an agenda in his books which mars some of the good points he makes). Reverend Paul Jehle made a good point: If the majority of evangelical/reformed pastors were elected to Congress, we would move furhter to the left overnight.
 
I think what Daniel was getting at in his original post is the attitude some people hold toward the secondary standards. I've had people tell me that the confession and catechisms "not only can't be changed, they can't even ever be questioned". This, of course, is to have way, way, way too high a reverence for these merely man-made documents. I know of at least one instance where a man was proudly displaying a Bible which he had re-bound to include a copy of the standards in the back. This kind of thinking makes me nervous.

I know that officially we all consider the Bible to be the ultimate standard of authority, which it is. But, too often, I find Reformed Christians have gotten into the habit of appealing to the secondary standards first instead of going to the Scriptures. At a practical level, this tends to put the secondary standards in a place, even unconsciously on the part of the one doing it, slightly higher than the Scriptures, by the mere fact of their being the reference of first resort instead of the Bible.

We need to keep in mind that something is theologically or practically correct primarily because the Bible says so.

The secondary standards are good summaries of the Bible's doctrine. They aren't any less than that - but they aren't any more than that, either.

Remember, Isaiah 8:20 doesn't read To the Westminster Confession of Faith and to the Directory for the Public Worship of God....
 
Are we to understand that the original confession is equivocating on the meaning of "the church" in a single paragraph?

If it is acceptable, then my earlier comment is validated to a degree.

I think the equivocation is one which is generally understood in theological parlance. Pick up any standard work on the church and the first thing one finds is a discussion of the semantics of the word ekklesia.

There are, no doubt, places where the Confession is deliberately ambiguous. On those places subscribers have liberty to understand the Confession as they think correct. E.g., the question of the magistrate calling synods: the 1647 approving act takes the liberty to understand it of the kirk unsettled. But where there is no ambiguity, but the original intent of the divines is clearcut, the church is bound either to accept or modify the statement. They can modify it either in terms of a Declaratory Act altering the terms of subscription to that particular point in the Confession, or they can alter the wording of the Confession itself. The first procedure gives liberty for subscribers to still maintain the original intent of the Confession, whilst the second method really binds the subscriber to maintain that the original form of the Confession was in error.

With regard to the relative authority of the confession, it must be understood that this is a confession of FAITH. In other words, it is what the church believes the Word of God teaches. It is thus, ipso facto, regarded as maintaining the infallible truth of Scripture. If it is in error, the church is bound to alter it to reflect its understanding of Scripture; but the alteration will then be regarded as the infallible teaching of Scripture, for it is what the church confesses the Word of God binds man to believe concerning God. If it is not what the Word of God teaches then the church should not maintain this as her confession of the faith.
 
Rich

My argument is not that each man gets to decide for himself, but that a denomination has the right to amend the Confession to bring it into closer conformity to Scripture. Although individual people should not be condemned merely for believing something contrary to the WCF (Baptists etc).

I would agree that Theonomy is not explicitly taught in the WCF, but to say that it precludes a Theonomic understanding is going too far (though, from what I can gather, you are not saying this) for a number of reasons:

1) Many of the Westminster Divines held a similar view of the penal sanctions to Bahnsen et al. See Martin Foulner's book Theonomy and the Westminster Confession for a large number of quotations from the Puritans on civil ethics. Or read James Jordan's article Calvinism and the Judicial Law of Moses.

2) Other men - like Donald Cargill and John Cotton - would have been banned from holding to the Westminster Standards if this was right.

3) Chapter 20 of the WCF does not teach that the judicial law of Moses has been set aside, as the ceremonial law has.

However, people who are not convinced of Theonomy should not be accused of violating the WCF, as the WCF is (probably deliberately) ambiguous.

As for the Federal Vision, I think there is a vast difference between a matter as serious as this one, and a belief in papal antichrist. One of the most disappointing things about the PCA report was that they did not refute it from Scripture. I watched a video of the proceedings and many men in the general assembly, some of whom were very opposed to FV, made the point that the FV needed to be proved wrong from Scripture and that the method adopted by the PCA (of condemning something because it was unconfessional) was itself against the WCF.

However, I repeat that swearing to something with crossed fingers is not an option.

Richard

That is exactly the point I was making, thank you. It is the fact people condemn something simply because it contradicts (or they think it contradicts) a human document that annoys me.
 
Greetings:

Daniel Richie writes:

Bahnsen (like myself) claimed to agree with the WCF framers (that only the 'general equity' or justice of the judicial law remains binding), though it should be kept in mind that there was not 100% agreement among the Westminster Divines on the civil law.
Bahnsen's interpretation here is incorrect.

Blessings,

-CH
 
Fifthly, it is said we give up too much to the papists if we admit Romanists to be in the church. To this we answer, Every false position is a weak position. The cause of truth. The cause of truth suffers in no way more than from identifying it with error, which is always done when its friends advocate it on false principles. When one says, we favor intemperance, unless we say that the use of intoxicating liquors is sinful; another, that we favor slavery, unless we say slaveholding is a sin; and a third, that we favor popery unless we say the church of Rome is no church, they all, as it seems to us, make the same mistake, and greatly injure the cause in which they are engaged. They dive the adversary an advantage over them, and they fail to enlist the strength of their own side. Men who are anxious to promote temperance, cannot join societies which avow principles which they believe to be untrue; and men who believe popery to be the greatest modern enemy of the gospel, cannot co-operate in measures of opposition to that growing evil, which are founded on the denial of what appear to be important scriptural principles. It is a great mistake to suppose popery is aided by admitting what truth it does include. What gives it its power, what constitutes its peculiarly dangerous character, is that it is not pure infidelity; it is not the entire rejection of the gospel, but truth surrounded with enticing and destructive error. Poison by itself is not so seductive, and therefore not so dangerous, as when mixed with food. We do not believe that those of our brethren from whom we are so unfortunate as to differ on this subject, have a deeper impression than we have either of the destructive character of the errors of popery, or of the danger to which religion and liberty are exposed from its progress. We believe it to be by far the most dangerous forms of delusion and error that has ever arisen in the Christian world, and all the more dangerous from its having arisen and established itself in the church, or temple of God.

Charles Hodge, Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church

My understanding is that the Reformers believed the Church of Rome is a true church and a false church. True with respect to the elect in her and the evangelical doctrines she teaches; the Trinity, Jesus Christ as mediator, salvation by grace, etc. False with respect to her Popery, superstition, idolatry, and semi-pelagianism. All the Magisterial and Post-Reformers, as far as I know, recognized that at her foundation Rome is a True Christian Church, but in her superstructure she is rotten and in desperate need of repair. She's a house unfit and dangerous to live in but a house nonetheless and better to be in than out in the cold.
 
I think one of the problems we have today is that the Standards are being turned into a wax nose. As Presbyterians, we do not subscribe to the "Reformed Traditions", whatever that means, but the the Westminster Standards. We also don't subscribe to our favorite Reformed Guru, which is a very popular thing to do these days. Calvin, Hodge, Murray and Edwards are great teachers and were right about a lot of things but were not right about everything. They are not the Church. Plus the fact that Joe Puritan was at the Assembly and believed X and the Standards say Y does not mean that X is within the "Bounds". As I recall, only the Church of Scotland required subscription to the Standards. I am not sure if any officer in the Church of England actually had to subscribe, especially when the King came back into power. Actually having to subscribe is where the rubber meets the road regardless of intent.

That is a really great point, and one I try to make to some of the FV sympathizers. The only change I would make to your formulation is that Y is 'X (not X). Many try to say that Y is just a "different formulation" than X.
 
... One of the most disappointing things about the PCA report was that they did not refute it from Scripture. I watched a video of the proceedings and many men in the general assembly, some of whom were very opposed to FV, made the point that the FV needed to be proved wrong from Scripture and that the method adopted by the PCA (of condemning something because it was unconfessional) was itself against the WCF.....

Proving the FV wrong from the WCF is (by implication) proving it wrong from Scripture. If the FV is right according to Scripture, then this means the WCF is wrong. So by going to Scripture first, this is an indirect attack of the WCF.

The proper order of appeal should be to go to the WCF first. If it disagrees with the WCF, then one must show that the WCF is not Scriptural. If the WCF is silent on the matter, then one should appeal to Scripture - and if it is not contrary to Scripture, then it is a matter of liberty. If it agrees with the WCF, then it is (by implication) Scriptural according to the WCF.

The WCF clarifies and summarizes the teachings of Scripture. Therefor, it is the first place we should look to to answers any matter. If it disagrees, we can say it is not scriptural. The fact that the WCF is of secondary authority does not imply it is the second place to appeal to on a matter.

That being said, it is a matter of personal duty for us all to study the WCF and settle in our own minds (be fully convinced) that it is a correct understanding of Scripture. If your church has set the WCF as a standard of what is scriptural, then if your are to stay in that church you need to be sure you agree with the WCF. A church has no authority to tell you what to believe, but it can tell you that if you don't believe what the church confesses, you may not be in that church. An appeal to Scripture is no good if what you believe the Bible says disagrees with what the church has said is scriptural in it's confession of faith. (Notice I did not use a capital 'c'. That's because I not saying the the "Church" has presented the WCF as Scripture. It may be true, but it's not the point I want to make.)
 
My argument is not that each man gets to decide for himself, but that a denomination has the right to amend the Confession to bring it into closer conformity to Scripture.

Argument made and has been agreed to by everyone. As I have noted, the issue of the Pope was dealt with with a change to the Standards. So the Standards can be and have been altered to better conform to Scripture. Is it that your church has not or is not willing to follow the American version?

I would agree that Theonomy is not explicitly taught in the WCF, but to say that it precludes a Theonomic understanding is going too far (though, from what I can gather, you are not saying this) for a number of reasons:

1) Many of the Westminster Divines held a similar view of the penal sanctions to Bahnsen et al. See Martin Foulner's book Theonomy and the Westminster Confession for a large number of quotations from the Puritans on civil ethics. Or read James Jordan's article Calvinism and the Judicial Law of Moses.

2) Other men - like Donald Cargill and John Cotton - would have been banned from holding to the Westminster Standards if this was right.

3) Chapter 20 of the WCF does not teach that the judicial law of Moses has been set aside, as the ceremonial law has.

However, people who are not convinced of Theonomy should not be accused of violating the WCF, as the WCF is (probably deliberately) ambiguous.

Unfortunately this argument just doesn't hold water. As I have previously noted, officers of the church do not subscribe to the theology of their favorite theologian or a particular person who attended the Assembly. BTW, were Mr. Cargill or Cotton required to subscribe to the Standards? If not then your point is moot.

I would be very interested to know what Presbyterian denomination states in their subscription vows for officers of the church that they can deviate from the plain reading of the Standards as long as they can find at least one person at the Assembly who held a different view. Do you know of any?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top