I was wondering how many here view their respective confession as functionally infallible? I realize no one here would believe that their confession is actually infallible, but it seems to me most people treat the confession as such anyway.

I was just taking a nap and this question popped in my head. No issue really caused it, just plain serendipitous curiosity.

Multiple choices are allowed. Also, stating your reasons why if you're a "no" would be interesting.

__________________
Mark Maney
Kwanglim Korean Methodist Church - 1689'er Baptist Pastor (read profile for more info)
Master of Theological Studies emphasis Biblical Studies
Trinity Western University, ACTS Seminaries
Surrey, BC. (Vancouver), Canada

I dont suppose that i could still be a ninja if i voted yes

__________________
Josiah Lovett
Member of
Trinity OPC Bothell Wa.
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
NAPARC
Westminster Confession (1788)

No.

I think it's probably a misnomer to assume that quoting a Confession and having confidence in its Biblical summary is equivalent to viewing it as infallible. Let me give an illustration.

Assume two men read John 3:16 and John 6.

The first man says: "See! God loves the world. The Scriptures don't lie. This means that every single person has an opportunity to believe the Gospel. Dave Hunt used this Scripture convincingly to demonstrate that James White is all wet!"

The second man replies: "I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit,2 out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;3 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,4 taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;5 renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,6 and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:7 yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.8"

The question for you is this:

Whose interpretation was infallible?

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I have been over the 1689 confession, and over it, and over it and over it. I have not found a point that I personally do not agree with. It is not "inspired" so of course there is that possibility, but I find it to be written beautifully and scripturally.

__________________
Jeffrey Wilson
Cornerstone Reformed Baptist Church
London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689
Summerland, British Columbia, Canada

"Discrimination is just a choice based on knowledge and good reason" Farrell Griswold

Infallible means cannot err. Any human writing can err. A better word would be inerrant, which means it does not err. Some clarification would need to be made as to what does not err -- the propositions in and of themselves, or the way in which the propositions have been stated. I don't think there is anyone who could subscribe a confession believing the propositions have been stated perfectly. But as to the propositions themselves, it is a contradiction to suggest a person can confess to believe something to be true whilst believing it errs.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I voted unsure but quiet. That's not accurate, though. I think I might even disagree at parts, in fact I probably do. But it is not something I want to cause trouble about.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.

__________________

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

Exactly. So the "No Creed but Christ" crowd proudly disdain those that believe a "man-made Confession" but then have inerrant confidence in their own opinions about what the Scriptures teach!

Well noted, Rich. We often hear that human documents cannot be propositionally inerrant. The problem being, that such a proposition claims to be without error. So we end up with the contradiction of a man claiming to make an inerrant proposition that men cannot make inerrant propositions.

Good to see you posting again Reverend Mat. I look for your posts. You must be studying. I have not seen you around much.

Concerning the part about the Pope being the Anti-christ. I have some questions here. Which Pope? And what about other Anti-christs. Isn't Islam Anti-Christ also? I do believe they are anti-Christs but to single one out is a bit presumptuous.

__________________
R. Martin Snyder (Moderator)

1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 of Providence Section 3which says God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. I don't think God works without means in his ordinary providence, because that would be unordinary providence. God ordinary uses means to accomplish his ends.

__________________
Richard Kairelis
Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCNA (Prarie View, IL)
Chicago, IL

Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.

I think you're missing the point.

Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?

A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.

Good point. It is possible for a human/uninspired document to be inerrant, but never can one be infallible.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart

If, by inerrant, you just mean "true," then I have no problem with it. But the word "inerrant" is dripping with theological meaning that is usually reserved for the Scripture alone. I believe the Confession is true. The problem with using the word "inerrant" is that, for most people, that puts it on the same level as Scripture. You and everyone else on this board are not saying that, but most people who know a little about Christianity would interpret it that way.

BTW, inerrant mean "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error! Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.

One of the options should be "No, because terms such as 'infallible' and/or 'inerrant' should be reserved for the Bible alone." One honors the Scriptures when he automatically assumes that all confessions of faith and catechisms are, in principle, fallible and errant. The Westminster divines certainly took this view (Confession 1.10).

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

Talking to oneself is, I believe, considered a sign of lunacy. Thinking to oneself is most certainly a sign of it. - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), in January, 1906

Sorry I've not been around much. Physical infirmity has meant I haven't been able to use the computer as much as normal. Which has been good, because I've caught up on some heavy duty reading.

This is a little off topic, but the Holy Spirit speaks of many antichrists as well as the antichrist. I think the Confession is quite right to do so. But as I've had cause to say before, chapter 25 of the Confession is dealing with ecclesiology not eschatology. Propositionally therefore the statement about the antichrist only requires us to affirm (1.) that Christ alone is the head of the church, (2.) that the antichrist falsely assumes that headship, and (3.) the Pope, in falsely assuming that headship, acts as the antichrist. It's worth pointing out that because the confessional statement interprets the apostle's language as referring to a system rather than an individual man, it leaves open the possibility of a future development of the antichristian system of Papal Rome.