WCF Vs Blind WCF Following
- Thread starter Reformed Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Peter
I think there is a difference between the Reformers before Trent, who would have seen the RCC as a true church, but a scandalously corrupt church. However, after Trent Rome anathematized the gospel - making it a synagogue of Satan.
Wayne
I know what you mean, but John Cotton and Donald Cargill were never censured for not agreeing with the WCF, whereas the Amyraldians and Erastians (present at the Assembly) find their views condemned in the standards. As Cargill was a Covenanter minister, he must have sworn to the WCF, and so when he called for the Covenanted nation of Scotland to be governed by the judicial law, he must not (in his own mind at least) have been doing something contrary to the Standards (otherwise his enemies would have picked up on this).
Anthony
While I sympathize with what you are saying, surely some exegesis would have helped the PCA report and stopped the mouths of FVers.
Everyone else
I think it is important to remember that none of us are capable of an entirely objective view of history; those of us with Theonomic leanings will interept WCF 19:4 and quotes from the Reformers and Puritans in accordance with our Theonomic presuppositions. Those who take a different view will undoubtedly view WCF 19:4 and historical quotations in a different light. Both sides may sincerely be trying to be honest, but their views are already tainted by their Theonomic or non-Theonomic presuppositions. However, this discussion was not meant to be about Theonomy (we could debate that for years) I just mentioned it as an example.
I think there is a difference between the Reformers before Trent, who would have seen the RCC as a true church, but a scandalously corrupt church. However, after Trent Rome anathematized the gospel - making it a synagogue of Satan.
Wayne
I know what you mean, but John Cotton and Donald Cargill were never censured for not agreeing with the WCF, whereas the Amyraldians and Erastians (present at the Assembly) find their views condemned in the standards. As Cargill was a Covenanter minister, he must have sworn to the WCF, and so when he called for the Covenanted nation of Scotland to be governed by the judicial law, he must not (in his own mind at least) have been doing something contrary to the Standards (otherwise his enemies would have picked up on this).
Anthony
While I sympathize with what you are saying, surely some exegesis would have helped the PCA report and stopped the mouths of FVers.
Everyone else
I think it is important to remember that none of us are capable of an entirely objective view of history; those of us with Theonomic leanings will interept WCF 19:4 and quotes from the Reformers and Puritans in accordance with our Theonomic presuppositions. Those who take a different view will undoubtedly view WCF 19:4 and historical quotations in a different light. Both sides may sincerely be trying to be honest, but their views are already tainted by their Theonomic or non-Theonomic presuppositions. However, this discussion was not meant to be about Theonomy (we could debate that for years) I just mentioned it as an example.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
The short-sightedness here is that ministers of the Word are just that, ministers of the Word, not ministers of the confession. It is impossible for a minister of the Word to proclaim the whole council of God if they limit themselves to the explicit subject of the confessions.
Please note the origin of the whole council of God. It is not the confession.
If would be stunted congregation indeed whose pastor limited himself to merely preaching the confessions. A pastor should be free to declare anything that has not been expressly condemned by his presbytery.
Now, obviously a pastor needs to be sensitive in the way he treats subjects that are not explicit in the confession, e.g., the millennial question. But to suggest he must avoid Revelation 20 or preach in such a fashion as to suggest the truth of the passage cannot be known is contrary to his calling. Likewise on the application of God’s law to modern society or the nature of the covenant.
I believe it is a misuse of the confessions to attempt to bind a pastor in such a way, and betrays a fundamental mistrust of these men.
Tom,
I honestly don't know who you're implying would state that a minister of the Gospel is not allowed to preach the whole counsel of God's Word. I also agree (and have agreed) that the Confession doesn't include all information contained in the Word. Nobody has argued that he can only exegete on the passages of Scripture that the Confession touches upon.
Where the Church has confessed, though, don't you believe it is a ministerial duty to say: "I disagree with the Church at this point based upon my personal study of the Scriptures."
Also, suppose he has a personal conviction on a doctrine that the WCF is silent about. He certainly may preach on the text but does he now have the authority to represent the teaching as doctrine. If someone differs from him on this point in conscience may he bring that person up on charges as violating their oaths of membership?
You seem to keep implying that bounding certain doctrines means that ministers must be silent on all doctrines. Can you point to a statement made here where this is even inferred?
It's rather like arguing that if I say that a man may not teach contrary to Chalcedon that he's not allowed to teach about anything other than the nature of Christ.
I honestly don't know who you're implying would state that a minister of the Gospel is not allowed to preach the whole counsel of God's Word. I also agree (and have agreed) that the Confession doesn't include all information contained in the Word. Nobody has argued that he can only exegete on the passages of Scripture that the Confession touches upon.
Where the Church has confessed, though, don't you believe it is a ministerial duty to say: "I disagree with the Church at this point based upon my personal study of the Scriptures."
Also, suppose he has a personal conviction on a doctrine that the WCF is silent about. He certainly may preach on the text but does he now have the authority to represent the teaching as doctrine. If someone differs from him on this point in conscience may he bring that person up on charges as violating their oaths of membership?
You seem to keep implying that bounding certain doctrines means that ministers must be silent on all doctrines. Can you point to a statement made here where this is even inferred?
It's rather like arguing that if I say that a man may not teach contrary to Chalcedon that he's not allowed to teach about anything other than the nature of Christ.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
What I think he means--and I am taking a guess--is that there have been some posters here on the board, for instance, have argued that a pastor shouldn't preach on a millennial view since the Confession doesn't spell it out. However, Revelation 20 is part of the "whole counsel of God," which would not forbid it being preached.
I think that might be what he is getting at.
Well, if I was interpreted that way then that was not my intent. What I would disagree with, though, is that the Pastor preach and say: "This is the Church's interpretation of these passages.
I also think that to preach on a millenial view so much or to make it the focus of a Church would then be in a position where it would become more doctrinally important in the Church's life. I've seen Churches define themselves as being theonomic or people who want to find a Pastor who preaches that way (or even those that insist that the Pastor should always preach Redemptive Historically).
Then we're no longer Presbyterians but we're theonomic Presbyterians or redemptive historical Presbyterians or we're Presbyterians who practice paedocommunion or ....
I also think that to preach on a millenial view so much or to make it the focus of a Church would then be in a position where it would become more doctrinally important in the Church's life. I've seen Churches define themselves as being theonomic or people who want to find a Pastor who preaches that way (or even those that insist that the Pastor should always preach Redemptive Historically).
Then we're no longer Presbyterians but we're theonomic Presbyterians or redemptive historical Presbyterians or we're Presbyterians who practice paedocommunion or ....
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
All of that being said, I have never heard a pastor, whether he be a theonomic or wannabe southern presbyterian, or dutchy ever preach on the millennium. I think it is a hobgoblin.
You surely are not oblivious to my point whether or not a Pastor preaches on a-millenialism or post-millenialism proper.
One can uncarefully make their millenial view so controlling in their preaching that, intended or not, the congregation becomes defined by it. That is not a hobgoblin. I can name names of Pastors and Churches in the SoCal Presbytery of the OPC that were defined more by the millenial views of their Pastors than any other doctrine (both post and a mil).
One can uncarefully make their millenial view so controlling in their preaching that, intended or not, the congregation becomes defined by it. That is not a hobgoblin. I can name names of Pastors and Churches in the SoCal Presbytery of the OPC that were defined more by the millenial views of their Pastors than any other doctrine (both post and a mil).
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
I think that is what I said.
However, I think what I was reacting to are statement like this:
Dr. Bahnsen was a member in good standing of the OPC. To the best of my knowledge neither the presbytery to which he was subject nor the broader OPC has ever said that Dr. Bahnsen’s views were not in accordance with what the WCF framer wrote in chapter 19. In other words,, Dr. Bahnsen confessed WCF 19 and he was never challenged in that confession save in the court of public opinion.
So the question, “who’s right” can only logically be answered “both” based on what we know. I think the PCA is in a similar state wrt theonomy.
Add to that the fact that other conservative Presbyterian denominations are either explicitly or implicitly theonomy-friendly.
I agree that it would be wrong for a person to demand that another hold to theonomic views, or anti-theonomic views for that matter.
It would equally wrong for a minister to refrain from preaching on God’s law along the lines of Dr. Bahnsen simply because some folks don’t think it is in agreement with the WCF framers.
Again, you said:
Be careful not to confuse un-confessional with a-confessional.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I didn't mean to say "hobgoblin." I was thinking about something else, but lost my train of thought. I should have edited it.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
Has not the GA of the PCA declared that all Westminster-confessing presbyterians are theonomic presbyterians?
Tom,
My point about Bahnsen was illustrative. I don't think he was completely un-Confessional but, unlike you, I don't agree it has not been demonstrated that his views on theonomy comported with WCF 19 in how they were framed. I have read Calvin and some of the framers on that and they did not share Bahnsen's views. In other words, it would be disingenuous to say that the WCF framers were theonomists while it is not disingenuous to say that Bahnsen was.
I'm not a big fan of people who try to read an old document and say: "Well that sounds just like what I'm saying...." The framers ought to be allowed to speak for themselves because that is what the Church confessed and has not yet Reformed. We're no different that those that make the WCF a wax nose if we treat it like a living document that now bends to our new understanding. We ought to amend the WCF if a point of doctrine we're holding conflicts with the WCF. Otherwise, at some point we become like the PCUSA who still claims to confess the WCF but it says nothing the way it used to.
I simply do not agree that theonomy is a teaching that you can present full-orbed and not run afoul of how the WCF framers understood what they were writing in WCF 19. Now is not the time to fully debate that point. Assuming that this is the case, however, my statement about "agreeing with the WCF" stands.
My point about Bahnsen was illustrative. I don't think he was completely un-Confessional but, unlike you, I don't agree it has not been demonstrated that his views on theonomy comported with WCF 19 in how they were framed. I have read Calvin and some of the framers on that and they did not share Bahnsen's views. In other words, it would be disingenuous to say that the WCF framers were theonomists while it is not disingenuous to say that Bahnsen was.
I'm not a big fan of people who try to read an old document and say: "Well that sounds just like what I'm saying...." The framers ought to be allowed to speak for themselves because that is what the Church confessed and has not yet Reformed. We're no different that those that make the WCF a wax nose if we treat it like a living document that now bends to our new understanding. We ought to amend the WCF if a point of doctrine we're holding conflicts with the WCF. Otherwise, at some point we become like the PCUSA who still claims to confess the WCF but it says nothing the way it used to.
I simply do not agree that theonomy is a teaching that you can present full-orbed and not run afoul of how the WCF framers understood what they were writing in WCF 19. Now is not the time to fully debate that point. Assuming that this is the case, however, my statement about "agreeing with the WCF" stands.
Only if one wishes to be pugnacious and disingenuous in the manner in which I was making the argument.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Rich
I would agree that a full-orbed theonomic view does go beyond the WCF, but this is not the same as saying it is unconfession per se (or, if you prefer, anti-confessional). The same could be said of presuppositionalism and post-millennialism; while I think the Westminster Standards contain elements of these doctrines, I would not argue that one needs to be post-millennial or a Van Tillian to subscribe to the WCF.
I would agree that a full-orbed theonomic view does go beyond the WCF, but this is not the same as saying it is unconfession per se (or, if you prefer, anti-confessional). The same could be said of presuppositionalism and post-millennialism; while I think the Westminster Standards contain elements of these doctrines, I would not argue that one needs to be post-millennial or a Van Tillian to subscribe to the WCF.
It's a fine point Daniel that I don't really want to get into here. I think some theonomists re-define what the general equity of the Law is, and by doing so, are un-Confessional in how they view what the general equity is.
I will grant, however, that theonomic views are not viewed as un-Confessional by the Churches where ministers serve in good standing and I have no right to state otherwise.
I do have a problem, as I've said repetedly, when those points of opinion begin to take over a Church. Then a minister's view of general equity may end up binding the conscience of a man in a way the Confession does not.
I will grant, however, that theonomic views are not viewed as un-Confessional by the Churches where ministers serve in good standing and I have no right to state otherwise.
I do have a problem, as I've said repetedly, when those points of opinion begin to take over a Church. Then a minister's view of general equity may end up binding the conscience of a man in a way the Confession does not.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Concerning general equity, I wonder if Frame's situational perspective is an angle on general equity?
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
Rich,
Perhaps then we need a better example than theonomy. Or perhaps it is a good example because since the church has not spoken against views held by Bahnsen et al they are admitedly not un-confessional. I think they are a-confessional. The millennial issue is the same. Although one would be hard pressed to find premillennialism among the WCF writers, and certainly the WCF has a decidedly optimistic a-/post-millennial flavor, yet no-one is calling historic premillennialists non-confessional, are they? Certainly the millennial issue (not to mention the creation days issue) is a wax nose if ever there was one.
The issue is whether there really is a conflict or not. My earlier contention is that there was latitude within the assembly to permit a many men as possible to subscribe in good faith.
You have your personal views on theonomy, and I respect them. But let's not kid ourselves that the church has un-confessed Dr. Bahnsen and Co.
Perhaps then we need a better example than theonomy. Or perhaps it is a good example because since the church has not spoken against views held by Bahnsen et al they are admitedly not un-confessional. I think they are a-confessional. The millennial issue is the same. Although one would be hard pressed to find premillennialism among the WCF writers, and certainly the WCF has a decidedly optimistic a-/post-millennial flavor, yet no-one is calling historic premillennialists non-confessional, are they? Certainly the millennial issue (not to mention the creation days issue) is a wax nose if ever there was one.
The issue is whether there really is a conflict or not. My earlier contention is that there was latitude within the assembly to permit a many men as possible to subscribe in good faith.
You have your personal views on theonomy, and I respect them. But let's not kid ourselves that the church has un-confessed Dr. Bahnsen and Co.
But I don't think there is a difference in the views of the Reformers before and after Trent (1545-1563). Calvin lived one year after the the last session of the council and the last edition of his Institutes came out right in the middle of it (1559) yet I don't know of Calvin changing his views on Rome as church or the related question of Romish baptism. Turretin wrote well after the council yet believed the Church of Rome was Christian. The Westminster Divines, as you said, at least believed in some sense the CoR was Christian.
Last edited:
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
To my admittedly limited knowledge, no Reformer saw RC baptism as invalid after Trent and no Reformed synod or GA declared it such until 1845. I am relying mainly on Dr. F.N. Lee and Dr. Rowland Ward for this understanding. It seems to me that those who say RC baptism is invalid and point to Trent (despite the fact that the Reformers themselves did not) do so because they don't want to have to say that the Reformers were in their view wrong on this point. Is it unreasonable to suggest that this is an illustration of the concerns raised in the OP?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
If John Knox ministered in our churches, would he have to take an exception to the confession on the law of God?
Knox writes:
The sections from Knox were taken from The Appellation of John Knox from the cruel and most unjust sentence pronounced against him by the false bishops and clergy of Scotland to teh nobility and estates of Scotland
The obvious inference that one draws from this is that Knox believed in a theocracy and not only should the magistrate uphold the Christian religion, but that the magistrate is to be put to death if he/she suppresses it.
Knox writes:
~Oliver and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, From Irenaeus to Grotius, p. 692.
The sections from Knox were taken from The Appellation of John Knox from the cruel and most unjust sentence pronounced against him by the false bishops and clergy of Scotland to teh nobility and estates of Scotland
The obvious inference that one draws from this is that Knox believed in a theocracy and not only should the magistrate uphold the Christian religion, but that the magistrate is to be put to death if he/she suppresses it.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
If you have in mind the American version of the confession adopted by the OPC and PCA that rejects the Establishment Principle the answer would certainly be yes, as it would be for Gillespie, Rutherford, etc.
Let's keep in mind that when we say "the confession", that most if not all of those outside of North America subscribe to the original, and that if we are not clear, there will be misunderstandings as we have seen already in this thread.
I think it's as good an example as any because we're all bound to have our sacred cows gored every now and again by a Confession and the question is what we do about it.
I have used the example of the Federal Vision and Redemptive Historical excess in my illustrations as well.
I don't necessarily agree that everything Bahnsen was very passionate about re:Theonomy was merely a-Confessional. It doesn't mean we ought to get out the pitch forks but I do wish that all of us would be careful to recognize it within ourselves when it happens. I don't think I'm any better than Bahnsen by the way. I'm not trying to stand in judgment of him.
He, nevertheless, remains a good example because he was, on the great whole, orthodox. It's very easy for us to not see any of the excesses of the Federal Vision proponents because they're un-Confessional on very key doctrines so we don't feel our kinship to them in the way they treat the Confession.
I frankly don't think we need any practice disregarding the Church's testimony where it steps on our toes. If Bahnsen taught a bit too stridently in a direction that the WCF would disagree with regarding the nature of general equity then let us acknowledge that, though the man was a great man, he did err occasionally in not clarifying that this was his view of the Scriptures and not the Church's understanding of the thing. Maybe he's right and a Council needs to decide that point eventually but, either way, it helps to keep those things clear rather than completely muddle them because we like Bahnsen or Knox or any host of other people.
I love Bahnsen's works on a number of things. I just got finished listening to his history of Western Philosophy. He was a treasure to the OPC in his lifetime. I started listening to Frame's Intro to Apologetics today and he made a good point about how much he appreciated Van Til but still read him with a critcal eye.
The point in the end is that any doctrine, even if it is a-Confessional, has to be treated with care. Ministers ought to be aware of the fact when something around the fenceline is taking them in a direction where they are now disagreeing with the Church even if they didn't start out that way. At that point, they ought to be respectful of everybody in their congregation who they know has sworn an oath to the Church but not to their opinions on a doctrine. If men would merely be more clear on where they are opining in some disagreement with the Confession then there would be a lot less rancor.
At some point, however, the WCF framers cannot agree with all the ways in which general equity is couched by various specialized schools of thought. Also, the ethical demands and time-consuming nature that theonomy spends on the nature of general equity distracts from the other doctrines.
If we can't learn something about being Confessional when it's challenging our convictions but only when it is challenging the "bad guys" then it doesn't seem like we're really too committed to a common confession. That's not a direct criticism, Tom, but a general observation.
Exactly.
I was just reflecting on this a bit more after Peter's response. It is a good illustration of the point.
I do like what Rev. Winzer wrote earlier about the way the Confession ought to be reformed and then how we ought to treat the Confession once it has been reformed.
I think one reaction to your observations, Chris, could be to throw up our hands and say, like Pilate, What is Truth?!
I mean, if the we're supposed to submit to the American revision of the WCF that even Gillespie wouldn't agree with then what are we supposed to believe?!
The problem is resolved by realizing that our goal here is the unity of the Faith. Dead Saints are useful polemic foils but when it's our Church in our time we need to remember that we're striving for a Biblical command here and the Church still has a role and the Confession serves part of that role.
Otherwise, we can do like some have done and pull beliefs from Saints of old like a Schmorgesborg. When challenged on their Confessional view they'll say: "But by challenging this, you're damning Augustine...!" It's supposed to be the trump card then because somebody at some point believed it, he was a Saint, now we should be permitted to spread that doctrine even if the Church confesses differently, and to say otherwise is to consign the man who believed it to hell.
I think we need to take a different look at it. In the end, we'll all find there was some error in our theology. But isn't it clear to us all that the Church has some role in Confessing? I would rather hold my peace than contribute to schism. Even if I can get Calvin, Rutherford, and Gillespie on my side, it might still be a great evil to disturb the Church's unity.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
This is to put the cart before the horse, and is a good illustration of just the kind of attitude that got this thread started in the first place. The first and last court of appeal is always the Scriptures.
Just a quick note of clarification in accord with my ordination vows that the Confession is the confession of my faith -- I never stated the Confession *ought* to be reformed. To me it is reformed, a faithful representation of Scripture teaching. I stated that where the Confession is not received as representing the teaching of Scripture the church has the power to make a declaratory statement or alter it, and that this would be better than giving a false confession. Blessings!
If you spoke proper American English I think you might understand me.
Seriously, I didn't mean to imply that you meant that is should be reformed but that you stated that, should it be reformed that it ought to be done in a certain way.
In other words, the "oughtness" wasn't over the idea that there's great expectation that it will have to be reformed. Rather, the "oughtness" in my post was over the insistence that it must be done correctly if it ever is.
That's another good point. I think we sometimes display a great suspicion or even an embarassment over the WCF. Yeah, it's our Confession but, at any second, we're going to need to reform it because something wrong is going to be found in it. It's our Confessional document but, don't you know, it's secondary, it's fallible. It might fail us so stand clear lest it blow up in your face.
I think we ought to have the utmost confidence in the Confessions of our Reformed Churches. Unfortunately, I can probably find more American Presbyterians that have more confidence in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution than the WCF.
Whenever a theological issue comes up on this board that I'm fairly confident about, I typically still go to the Reformed Confessions (WCF and 3FU) because I have the utmost confidence in their exegesis and understanding of these doctrines. They also contain where the writers went in the Scriptures (in part) to form these concepts.
If you spoke proper American English I think you might understand me.
You might be onto something here.
CH,
I specifically kept my point vague about theonomy in order to avoid getting into a specific debate about Theonomy here. I'm content to allow those convinced it is un-Confessional or Confessional to argue broadly but I don't want to get into it too much. I know I started some of the conversation but it was merely illustrative to get us all to think along the lines of Confessionalism.
If people want to continue the debate in detail then it will need to be in another thread.
I specifically kept my point vague about theonomy in order to avoid getting into a specific debate about Theonomy here. I'm content to allow those convinced it is un-Confessional or Confessional to argue broadly but I don't want to get into it too much. I know I started some of the conversation but it was merely illustrative to get us all to think along the lines of Confessionalism.
If people want to continue the debate in detail then it will need to be in another thread.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Peter
I agree with your conclusion about what the Reformers thought; I agree with them about Rome before Trent, but disagree with them after Trent.
This is one place where I am quite happy to admit that I am un-confessional, indeed even anti-confessional, however, this is because I believe the WCF to be unbiblical at this point. Rome is a synagogue of Satan - which has anathematized the gospel of Jesus Christ - therefore it should not be considered a true church.
Others
I only raised the issue of Theonomy to illustrate a point, it was not meant to start a whole debate on the issue. Surely there are other threads in which this has been done in the past.
Last edited:
- Status
