Truths We Confess (Vol. 2) -- R.C. Sproul, Sr.

VirginiaHuguenot · #1 (**permalink**) 07-26-2007, 08:45 AM

The second volume of R.C. Sproul, Sr.'s commentary on the Westminster Confession (covering chapters 9 - 22) is now available: Truths We Confess: A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith - Volume 2: Salvation and the Christian Life.

VirginiaHuguenot · #2 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 08:35 PM

Monergism sells it for $17.49.

Pilgrim · #3 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 09:36 PM

I was surprised to see Vol. 1 on an endcap in the local Lifeway (Baptist Book Store) a few weeks ago.

Semper Fidelis · #4 (**permalink**) 07-28-2007, 02:10 AM

Andrew,

Have you read it? As you are pretty tight in your Confessionalism what do you think of R.C. as commenting on the WCF? He seems kind of loose in his application of the RPW based on some things I've heard him say.

I used to refer to him much more than I do now. I consider his work to be more introductory or, in some cases, interesting. Whenever he teaches stuff, it seems he spends a good portion of his time talking about what higher critics said in the late 19th and early 20th Century to criticize their stuff. I've always found that interesting in Renewing your Mind but I don't find his stuff to delve deeply into some of the finer points of Reformed theology.

Don't get me wrong: I have met R.C. 4-5 times and thanked him effusively for his ministry. I'll thank him in heaven too. It's his ministry, by and large, that God used to reform my theology.

Jeff_Bartel · #5 (**permalink**) 07-28-2007, 10:14 AM

Rich,

I agree with you. I was given Volume One of this series as a gift, and the full title is

Truths We Confess
A Layman's Guide to the
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH

I think that Sproul is more aiming to a larger auidence, so his messages are not going to be like reading Francis Turretin.

In Volume One, he really doesn't address the regulative principle. However, I have to wonder what kind of treatment it will receive due to his views on worship (hymns, instruments, holy days, choirs, etc.) and even to a degree, his devotion to historic presbyterianism (as he is pastoring an independent church).

That being said, I also have a deep respect for Sproul.

VirginiaHuguenot · #6 (**permalink**) 07-28-2007, 11:26 AM

I have not yet read Vol. 2. I agree with Jeff's assessment of Vol. 1.

Among modern commentaries on the WCF (from the 1990's forward), I have in my library some that have erroneous treatments of the regulative principle of worship (Rowland Ward), some that are basic or even superficial in their treatment of the RPW (Joey Pipa and Gary Crampton, respectively) and some that are spot on concerning the RPW (Wayne Spear, G.I. Williamson). I haven't read the commentaries by Gerstner, Kelly & Robinson; James Bordwine; Ball & Robinson; T.L. Wilkinson; but from what I have heard they are not outstanding in this area. Of course the 1998 edition of Robert Shaw's commentary (CFP), as well as the 2002 edition (PAP [Matthew Winzer]) and 2007 edition (BOT) of David Dickson's commentary, Truth's Victory Over Error, are very good on this and other points.

I don't have high expectations for Sproul's treatment of the RPW, but I plan to get the volume anyway at least for research purposes. He may handle other chapters well. We shall see.

VirginiaHuguenot · #7 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 07:54 PM

I received my copy and have read the chapters on the law of God, Christian liberty and religious worship. I found it interesting that chapter 20 (Christian liberty) uses the original WCF text rather than the amended American version.

He discusses theonomy and does not appear to support it. On chap. 19.4 (p. 267) he says:

Quote:

Should we try to make the United States a theocracy? The confession says that we should not. The judicial laws were set forth in Israel for the purpose of their redemption and are no longer applicable since that theocratic state has expired. However, it is conceivable that there could be another theocracy today, molded according to the legislation of the Old Testament. It could be made a capital offense to profane the name of God publicly. Such a penalty would not be inherently unjust, for that would mean that God was unjust to impose such a sanction in the Old Testament community.

He objects to the Westminster Confession at 21.4 concerning the prohibition to pray for those who are known to have sinned the sin unto death (pp. 323-325) and calls that statement a collective "slip."

Concerning song in worship, he acknowledges that some Presbyterian groups adhere to exclusive psalmody but with a cursory (not exegetical) reference to Eph. 5.19 and Col. 3.16 goes on to say that our worship is informed by a rich history of hymnody (p. 328) and that at his Ligonier conference they sing classical and traditional hymns (p. 329).

He takes the clause in 21.5 concerning extraordinary acts of worship to validate ecclesiastical holy days such as Easter, Maundy Thursday, and Christmas (p. 332) but does not acknowledge the Westminster Directory of Public Worship's prohibition against the same.

He argues that "The Puritans misunderstood the word 'pleasure'" (p. 344) wrt recreation on the Lord's Day and that (as noted before in this thread) that Calvin bowled on the Lord's Day (p. 342).

These are just a few highlights that I noticed upon a cursory review.

3John2 · #8 (**permalink**) 08-07-2007, 03:17 AM

I gotta get with da program. I don't even have volume 1 yet!!!

NaphtaliPress · #9 (**permalink**) 08-07-2007, 07:26 PM

I'm sure the work is fine for where the author is right; but the caveats already noted are sad.

armourbearer · #10 (**permalink**) 08-07-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

I have in my library some that have erroneous treatments of the regulative principle of worship (Rowland Ward),

Andrew, are you saying Rowland's treatment of the RPW itself is faulty, or just that he incorrectly applies it, e.g., psalms not being the Psalms.

Ivanhoe · #11 (**permalink**) 08-07-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

I received my copy and have read the chapters on the law of God, Christian liberty and religious worship. I found it interesting that chapter 20 (Christian liberty) uses the original WCF text rather than the amended American version.

He discusses theonomy and does not appear to support it. On chap. 19.4 (p. 267) he says:

He objects to the Westminster Confession at 21.4 concerning the prohibition to pray for those who are known to have sinned the sin unto death (pp. 323-325) and calls that statement a collective "slip."

Concerning song in worship, he acknowledges that some Presbyterian groups adhere to exclusive psalmody but with a cursory (not exegetical) reference to Eph. 5.19 and Col. 3.16 goes on to say that our worship is informed by a rich history of hymnody (p. 328) and that at his Ligonier conference they sing classical and traditional hymns (p. 329).

He takes the clause in 21.5 concerning extraordinary acts of worship to validate ecclesiastical holy days such as Easter, Maundy Thursday, and Christmas (p. 332) but does not acknowledge the Westminster Directory of Public Worship's prohibition against the same.

He argues that "The Puritans misunderstood the word 'pleasure'" (p. 344) wrt recreation on the Lord's Day and that (as noted before in this thread) that Calvin bowled on the Lord's Day (p. 342).

These are just a few highlights that I noticed upon a cursory review.

In his book Renewing Your Mind and the one that introduced Christianity, he explicitly affirmed theonomy (I have the page numbers somewhere). I agree with most of what you quoted, being that he says a theocracy would not be unjust, with which you would agree.

VirginiaHuguenot · #12 (**permalink**) 08-07-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Andrew, are you saying Rowland's treatment of the RPW itself is faulty, or just that he incorrectly applies it, e.g., psalms not being the Psalms.

Ward affirms the RPW de jure but in the area of song de facto denies what is required by both the RPW and the Confession, ie., a capella psalmody. He says (pp. 187-188):

Quote:

However, although the Westminster Assembly envisaged a common Psalter in public worship, 'psalms' here is, I believe, a generic term for religious song.
...
The practice of a capella psalmody continues in several Presbyterian bodies today. While it would be a mistake to suppose that the WCF as such requires this practice as the only legitimate application of the regulative principle, the WCF certainly does require the recognition of the principle that worship is not to be offered according to our desires but God's appointment. The principle will exclude much in modern self-centred worship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

In his book Renewing Your Mind and the one that introduced Christianity, he explicitly affirmed theonomy (I have the page numbers somewhere). I agree with most of what you quoted, being that he says a theocracy would not be unjust, with which you would agree.

Sproul says (p. 266):

Quote:

All Christians are theonomists in the sense that they are subject to the law of God. However, the movement that bears the name theonomy is particularly concerned with applying the civil laws in the Mosaic law to today. For example, some thirty-five offenses were listed as capital crimes in the penal code of Israel. They included the disobedience of children to their parents, public blasphemy, consorting with fortune tellers, wizards, necromancers, or spiritual mediums, and homosexual behavior. Theonomists believe that these and the other civil laws in the Old Testament should be enacted in the legislation of nations today.

The Westminster Confession, however, says this: He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. This becomes rather complicated, but the key point here is that these laws given to Israel expired when the Jewish state expired in the first century.

As I said, he does not here appear to affirm theonomy. In the previous quote, Sproul denies that the Confession teaches 'theocracy.' He says "The Jewish people had their own government, called a theocracy....There was a marriage of church and state in the theocratic establishment of Israel." As you know, "theonomy" and "theocracy" are not synonomous. I am a theocrat but not a theonomist. Sproul seems to allow that there is nothing inherently wrong with a theocratic government today, but that the Confession does not require it. I think at this point, he is conflating the terms "theonomy" and "theocracy." When he says the Confession does not require "theocracy," I think he is saying it does not require the judicial laws of Israel to be enforced today (ie., "theonomy"). If I read him correctly, I agree that the Confession does not require that the judicial laws of Israel be enforced today; I do, however, believe the Confession requires theocracy, ie., the magistrate must acknowledge Christ as King and his law must be in accord with God's moral law. Sproul's discussion of this issue is fairly brief and, as a result, lacks precision (he acknowledges that it gets "complicated" but as his book is geared towards laymen, I reckon he does not think it is needed to explain in detail the issues involved). In my earlier post, I did not say whether I agreed with his postion on theonomy/theocracy or not; because the way he summarizes the issues lacks precision, I don't feel the need to affirm or deny what he said; my intent is only to summarize for those who have not read the book. Hopefully that is helpful.

VirginiaHuguenot · #13 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 01:38 PM

It appears that volume 3 will be released shortly.

VirginiaHuguenot · #14 (**permalink**) 09-24-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

It appears that volume 3 will be released shortly.

Now available at RHB for $17.00.

jbergsing · #15 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 10:51 AM

There seems to be a little criticism of R.C. Sproul's work on the WCF. This question is open to anyone reading this: Which commentaries on the WCF would you recommend and why?

DMcFadden · #16 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 12:36 PM

You mature reformed folk are probably accurate in your critique of Sproul on the points you referenced. Please realize that for some of us Sproul is viewed in a very different light. In a Christian world more interested in the rotting scraps from Joel Osteen than the gourmet meal of Francis Turretin, Sproul has been used of the Lord in a mighty way to introduce MANY to the truths of Calvinism. And, even for some of us who thought we "knew" but had strayed into the muddy muddle of mainstream evangelicalism, Sproul has been a tool of a Provident God to prod us back toward the truth. On a purely personal note, when I was facing a family crisis with the fourth of my five children a couple of years ago, R.C.'s series on the Providence of God was the thing that pulled me through, psyche and spirit intact.

shackleton · #17 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 01:09 PM

All the people I know that became reformed out of a arminian background did so by reading an RC Sproul book, myself included. I many who are thankful for his "simple" way of explaining things. Someone needs to explain these truths to people who have never heard it.

VirginiaHuguenot · #18 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergsing

There seems to be a little criticism of R.C. Sproul's work on the WCF. This question is open to anyone reading this: Which commentaries on the WCF would you recommend and why?

You can find a list of all the known (I think) commentaries (and study guides, etc.) on the WCF here. My personal favorites are Robert Shaw, David Dickson and A.A. Hodge. They are, imo, the sweetest devotionally and the soundest doctrinally.

I've listed some of the others that I have in my own library previously in this thread, and I have others not listed. They are all (or almost all) useful to consult on various points. I don't rely on only one commentary, whether for Scriptures or the confessions and catechisms. They all have various strengths and weaknesses and different target audiences and time periods. But the favorites I listed do indeed stand out.

As an aside, since I wrote post #6, I have obtained Gerstner, Kelly & Robinson's commentary and was pleasantly surprised to read their affirmation that the Puritans did indeed adhere to exclusive a cappella psalmody.

Calvibaptist · #19 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

As an aside, since I wrote post #6, I have obtained Gerstner, Kelly & Robinson's commentary and was pleasantly surprised to read their affirmation that the Puritans did indeed adhere to exclusive a cappella psalmody.

AAAAGGGGGHHHH!!!! Yet another thread turned into an EP debate! I wonder if there is some comment in that book about them believing in baptism by immersion!