More on Confessionalism

JohnOwen007 · #1 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 01:53 AM

Steve Holmes has an interesting post on confessionalism on his blog. It is included below and a post that raises some good points for discussion. Comments?

Quote:

It seems to me that most people who claim to subscribe to the Reformed symbols today fail in both excess and defect.

There is an excess in that the symbols are elevated to some sort of timelessly normative standard which appears to rival Scripture. It is not difficult to find language of the symbols as ‘defining’ the Reformed faith. This is, bluntly, rubbish. Scripture alone defines faith for anyone who can hope to pretend to the title ‘Reformed’. Certain symbols may be welcomed insofar as they are judged to express the true teaching of Scripture. They are, to repeat myself, norma normata, not norma normans. This is not an abstruse or difficult distinction, but it is a vital, and routinely forgotten, one.

(An illustration might help: my university has various policies to which I am required to adhere, on such matters as health and safety of employees and students, a refusal to discriminate on ethnic or gender lines, &c. These policies exist largely as interpretations of certain legislative acts of the Westminster, Brussels, and Holyrood parliaments. If at any point the policy could be demonstrated to contradict the legislation, it would be the (legal) duty of any employee of the university to disregard the policy and to obey the legislation. The policies are thus rather precisely norma normata, subordinate to the norma normans which are the laws of Scotland, the United Kingdom, and the European Community. Just so, the symbols have real, but subordinate and potentially revocable, authority over those churches which have adopted them as helpful interpretations of Scripture.)

There is also a defect, in that no-one seems prepared simply to grant the symbols authority. This was the point of my previous post.

Finally, a perhaps interesting historical side-note: in the discussion over the Enns affair, everybody has been throwing around the term ‘The Westminster Confession’. As far as I can see, though, no-one has paused to specify which document they are referring to. Westminster Seminary California, according to its own website, does not hold to the 17th century Westminster Confession; it holds to the 1787 Philadelphia revision (it doesn’t tell you this; it just publishes the 1787 version under the heading ‘Westminster Confession’) the main WTS website links to an outside site which publishes the text that is usually referred to as ‘The Westminster Confession,’ a text that has no ecclesial validity at all that I can determine, in that it adopts parts (mainly the Scripture proofs) of the 1648 edition (the one edited at the request of the English parliament), whilst ignoring other parts of that edition (the Erastian ammendments of articles XX, XXIV, XXX and XXXI). The Scots parliament received the original edition in 1648; after Cromwell’s death, the English parliament chose in 1659 to accept the original articles XX and XXIV, but still refused XXX and XXXI. And so on.

Various other American Presbyterian groups hold to the 1799 revision, the Cumberland revision, the 1858 revision, &c. In most cases the differences relate to the role of the civil magistrate as governor and protector of the church; the Westminster standards teach unambiguously the unity of church and state (there are other changes: in some of the later American editions the pope is not identified as the antichrist; in others all who die in infancy are saved, rather than just ‘elect infants’).

There are a couple of small American denominations that hold to the original Westminster Standards, which are interesting case-studies in what it is to be confessional. The Reformed Presbyterian Church held to the original standards, and so maintained a principled political dissent, refusing to participate in the US political process, into the nineteenth century (they seem now to have weakened this witness). Other groups, believing (arguably rightly) that they have no right to edit the work of a synod, receive the confession as written, but then add riders to the effect that they have chosen to demur on certain points–in our Baptist language, the Lord has been pleased to grant more light and truth, and so the confession needs amending.

So what? Well, perhaps four comments. First, none of the revisions affect Article I, which is what the Enns affair is allegedly about, so all this confusion might not matter. But, second, the confusion is perhaps slightly worrying. Do WSC and WTS really hold to different confessions (1787 and 1647-ish)? If not, which one has been sufficiently sloppy on its website to publish the wrong confession? If WTS really holds to the confession it links to, how do its faculty and students deal with the unambiguous teaching of the unity of church and state? (The RPC was right, as far as I, admittedly an outsider both politically and ecclesially, can see: if you believe the 1647 Confession, participation in the American political process is necessarily anti-Christian.)

Third, this all illustrates why we actually need to study symbolics, rather than just shouting about being confessional. As a Baptist, of course, I regard the church/state teaching of 1647 as erroneous; but, bluntly, the 1787 revision, which was simply a writing in of current political realities to the confession to make it congenial to the nascent Republic, is hardly the right answer (that’s not the separation of church and state, it’s the subjection of church to state!). The edition of the Confession contained in the 1658 Savoy Declaration is a far happier document in theological terms in my judgement (unsurprisingly; its main author was John Owen). If we are going to claim to be confessional, we need to understand this history (it’s not hard work…), and our churches and institutions need to be prepared to evaluate the differing documents and choose between them (that is hard work…).

Fourth, and here I tread with trembling, because I am about to challenge the theological insight of Owen, I do wonder whether all these revisions to the magistracy articles are not incoherent. I have a suspicion that, if you analyse it closely enough, the soteriology, ecclesiology, and political theology of the Westminster Confession are mutually implicated. That is, the particular form of federal Calvinism, the particular Presbyterian polity, and the account of the role of the magistrate, are related outworkings of the same theological commitments. One of the lessons of the study of symbolics is that the good symbols have a deep inner coherence that demands respect; I suspect that you cannot change the political theology of the Westminster Standards without damaging or undermining their account of soteriology.

As I say, this is no more than a suspicion, but perhaps it is an interesting one…

armourbearer · #2 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 08:11 PM

Quote:

They are, to repeat myself, norma normata, not norma normans.

First, the sentence is grammatically incorrect. The subject is plural and the predicate is singular.

Secondly, the article attributes no normativity whatever to the Confession, calling it "rubbish" to say that the confession "defines" the reformed faith. The author obviously thinks that the confession is little more than an historic landmark which points to what the church once believed. The Protestant view, however, is that a confession is "norma secundaria," and "discretionis." It is the word of God in a secondary sense, namely, in terms of what the church believes the word of God to teach. Without this normed norm the norming norm is an unintelligible mystery. It may suit dishonest men to hide their faith behind a screen of mysterious relativity, but the truth of God fears not the judgement of men and therefore manifests itself with absolute clarity for all to hear and consider, 2 Cor. 4:2.

Quote:

I have a suspicion that, if you analyse it closely enough, the soteriology, ecclesiology, and political theology of the Westminster Confession are mutually implicated.

There is no need to be suspicious of an obvious fact. I think it was R. L. Dabney who drew attention to the arch-like structure of the teachings of the Confession, noting how they stand or fall together.

VirginiaHuguenot · #3 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 08:56 PM

I am grateful for the point made about revisions to the WCF and testimonies which negate portions of the WCF (and the subsequent remarks about the magistrate too), although I know nothing about the author or the context of the comments.

It is wearisome to have to affirm often that one holds to the "original" WCF, as if the original is a sidebar to the repeated revisions. The Savoy, the LBCF, the 1788, 1903 and numerous other revisions all take the original WCF as their starting point and then proceed to go off in their own theological directions. Many people do not know that there is an original WCF that looks quite different in significant respects from the WCF to which they or their denomination adhere. In the interests of "precisionism," it would be helpful in debates and discussions when one states their confessional loyalty which particular revision of the original they are really holding to.

The PB Reformed Confessions link does not appear to be working at the moment, but in the thread about it I pointed out that the original WCF was not included in the PB's list of standards in that particular link.

Confessional Standards on PB

It is my own wish that people would understand and correctly refer to the confessions to which they adhere or discuss. It would save a lot of time and energy in discussions that arise. We (particularly here on a forum which includes a wide range of ecclesiastical affiliations from Presbyterian to Baptist to Lutheran to Anglican to independent / non-affiliated) should all strive to know what we believe and what others believe, seeking above all to be in accord with what the Scriptures themselves teach.

JohnOwen007 · #4 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The Protestant view, however, is that a confession is "norma secundaria," and "discretionis." It is the word of God in a secondary sense, namely, in terms of what the church believes the word of God to teach. Without this normed norm the norming norm is an unintelligible mystery.

Dear Matthew, thanks for your comments, but I do struggle with the above point. Without a confession, Scripture is an "unintelligible mystery"? Did you really mean to say that, or was it just a rush of blood? It contradicts both Scripture itself and the classic reformation teaching of the clarity of Scripture (say outlined by Luther in the Bondage of the Will and then codified so well by the Protestant Orthodox systems).

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

There is no need to be suspicious of an obvious fact. I think it was R. L. Dabney who drew attention to the arch-like structure of the teachings of the Confession, noting how they stand or fall together.

Yes, I found Steve's comment at this point interesting. I must confess I can't see the connection myself between the WCF's federal theology and politics. I'd certainly be open to being shown.

Blessings.

JohnOwen007 · #5 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

I am grateful for the point made about revisions to the WCF and testimonies which negate portions of the WCF (and the subsequent remarks about the magistrate too), although I know nothing about the author or the context of the comments.

It is wearisome to have to affirm often that one holds to the "original" WCF, as if the original is a sidebar to the repeated revisions. The Savoy, the LBCF, the 1788, 1903 and numerous other revisions all take the original WCF as their starting point and then proceed to go off in their own theological directions.

Dear Andrew, yes, I was appreciative of this point also. It may indicate something about a reformed mentality out there, namely that some want to be known as followers of the 17th century fathers, but don't want to admit (for whatever reason) they're ultimately not.

I suspect that being more explicit about the confession we follow (whether the original or revised WCF) would help people recognize more clearly the role of purpose of the confession.

In actual fact for all the bluster about the 16th and 17th century confessions defining the reformed faith, those who actually do follow the 16th and 17th century confessions are but a few.

Cheers.

armourbearer · #6 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew, thanks for your comments, but I do struggle with the above point. Without a confession, Scripture is an "unintelligible mystery"? Did you really mean to say that, or was it just a rush of blood? It contradicts both Scripture itself and the classic reformation teaching of the clarity of Scripture (say outlined by Luther in the Bondage of the Will and then codified so well by the Protestant Orthodox systems).

Marty, It is because of the clarity of Scripture that the church is able and mandated to confess what it teaches and renounce the hidden things of dishonesty. Your declaration of the "clarity of Scripture" is itself a confession. By that statement you have declared what you believe Scripture teaches concerning itself. Not only so, but you proceeded to examine my statements in the light of your confession on the clarity of Scripture, thereby evincing that you hold your confession to be normative in a secondary sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Yes, I found Steve's comment at this point interesting. I must confess I can't see the connection myself between the WCF's federal theology and politics. I'd certainly be open to being shown.

Federalism was influential in 16th century political thought and shaped modern ideas of the social contract and democracy. It is inherent in the Confession's presentation of a religiously constituted magistrate who is excluded from assuming the administration of Word and sacraments.

VirginiaHuguenot · #7 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 09:59 PM

FWIW, I see that the link to the PB list of Reformed Confessions that I cited above is now working. However, although the WCF link purports to be the Confession approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647, it is in fact one of the American revisions, and not what the Westminster Assembly actually wrote.

Semper Fidelis · #8 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 10:25 PM

I have a few questions for those that question the validity to the American revisions of the WCF:

1. Was the American Presbyterian Church, properly speaking, a Church or not when she made the revisions?

2. Does not Chapter XXXI admit to the American Church's authority to settle a matter of controversy as to whether or not the inclusion of a particular paragraph is something the Church ought to be confessing?

3. If no to question 1, what authority did the Church of England have to confess the 1647 Confession to begin with? Is it because they were English and not American?

4. If no to question 2, how can a new visible Church with no direct historical connection to the Church of England adopt the original Westminster Confession of Faith? Wouldn't a micro-Presbytery in the USA founded by 2-3 Churches be assuming the authority of a Church to declare a Confession of Faith even if they were adopting something that had been adopted previously.

I'm trying to get behind some of the implied snobbery that goes along with assuming that anything but the original WCF is out of bounds. The WCF itself admits to being "amendable" provided that it is the Church doing the amending. We can all agree that it becomes questionable when we have individuals picking and choosing and standing outside of the visible Church in the process of selective Confessionalism but how do we reconcile what visible Church does/does not have the authority to settle a matter of the Confession? It seems the individual(s) who go off and form micro-Presbyteries apart from a larger American Church have to answer the issue as to what authority they have to stand in isolation from the American Presbyterian Church at large.

Semper Fidelis · #9 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

FWIW, I see that the link to the PB list of Reformed Confessions that I cited above is now working. However, although the WCF link purports to be the Confession approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647, it is in fact one of the American revisions, and not what the Westminster Assembly actually wrote.

The preface states that the Confession was adopted in 1647 but doesn't state, explicitly, that this is the Confession. I'll put a blurb on there that notes it's the American Revision.

If you click on the History of the Confession then it has a tabular comparison that notes the portions removed in the American revision.

VirginiaHuguenot · #10 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The preface states that the Confession was adopted in 1647 but doesn't state, explicitly, that this is the Confession. I'll put a blurb on there that notes it's the American Revision.

Thank you.

I will not be dignifying the "implied snobbery" remark with a response. It is the claim to the mantle of WCF, rather than the approach of the Savoy or LBCF to honestly assume a different title to an amended document, that has been my objection all along.

Semper Fidelis · #11 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The preface states that the Confession was adopted in 1647 but doesn't state, explicitly, that this is the Confession. I'll put a blurb on there that notes it's the American Revision.

Thank you.

I will not be dignifying the "implied snobbery" remark with a response. It is the claim to the mantle of WCF, rather than the approach of the Savoy or LBCF to honestly assume a different title to an amended document, that has been my objection all along.

Do you have an answer to whether or not the American Presbyterian Church was a Church when it made the Revision in 1788?

JohnOwen007 · #12 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew, thanks for your comments, but I do struggle with the above point. Without a confession, Scripture is an "unintelligible mystery"? Did you really mean to say that, or was it just a rush of blood? It contradicts both Scripture itself and the classic reformation teaching of the clarity of Scripture (say outlined by Luther in the Bondage of the Will and then codified so well by the Protestant Orthodox systems).

Marty, It is because of the clarity of Scripture that the church is able and mandated to confess what it teaches and renounce the hidden things of dishonesty. Your declaration of the "clarity of Scripture" is itself a confession. By that statement you have declared what you believe Scripture teaches concerning itself. Not only so, but you proceeded to examine my statements in the light of your confession on the clarity of Scripture, thereby evincing that you hold your confession to be normative in a secondary sense.

Dear Matthew, thanks for the thoughts, but you haven't answered my question. Your reply is simply showing the need for systematic theology--I entirely agree, we can't live without it; I use exactly the same reasoning on my students.

However, I questioned you about the clarity of Scripture itself. You claimed Scripture was an "unintelligible mystery" without confessions. Do you really believe this? It is a contradiction of the classic reformation teaching on the clarity of Scripture.

Every blessing my brother.

JohnV · #13 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I have a few questions for those that question the validity to the American revisions of the WCF:

1. Was the American Presbyterian Church, properly speaking, a Church or not when she made the revisions?

2. Does not Chapter XXXI admit to the American Church's authority to settle a matter of controversy as to whether or not the inclusion of a particular paragraph is something the Church ought to be confessing?

3. If no to question 1, what authority did the Church of England have to confess the 1647 Confession to begin with? Is it because they were English and not American?

4. If no to question 2, how can a new visible Church with no direct historical connection to the Church of England adopt the original Westminster Confession of Faith? Wouldn't a micro-Presbytery in the USA founded by 2-3 Churches be assuming the authority of a Church to declare a Confession of Faith even if they were adopting something that had been adopted previously.

I'm trying to get behind some of the implied snobbery that goes along with assuming that anything but the original WCF is out of bounds. The WCF itself admits to being "amendable" provided that it is the Church doing the amending. We can all agree that it becomes questionable when we have individuals picking and choosing and standing outside of the visible Church in the process of selective Confessionalism but how do we reconcile what visible Church does/does not have the authority to settle a matter of the Confession? It seems the individual(s) who go off and form micro-Presbyteries apart from a larger American Church have to answer the issue as to what authority they have to stand in isolation from the American Presbyterian Church at large.

I too would have to add my objection to that last paragraph. The fact that the American churches recognize the WCF in the first place, that they would amend it to better reflect what they believe, is a testimony to the superiority of that assembly to whose ruling they confessionally adhered and submitted.

The real question, it seems to me, is whether the amendments remained faithful to the original. For all doctrinal statements made by churches, of whatever hierarchical status, are susceptible to cultural revisions so as to maintain the original doctrines and to keep them wholly intact from generation to generation. In that sense Andrew's sentiments are as suspect as those of the American presbyterian churches. And since we do not delve into the minds of the men who wrote the original, but rather delve into the mind of the Spirit who moved the men to write the original, we turn naturally to the Word of God, trusting that God has sufficiently and perspicuously revealed His Word to us.

armourbearer · #14 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

However, I questioned you about the clarity of Scripture itself. You claimed Scripture was an "unintelligible mystery" without confessions. Do you really believe this? It is a contradiction of the classic reformation teaching on the clarity of Scripture.

As answered previously, you are using the normed norm to question my statement, which only goes to proves my point. Scripture is not some nebulous stuff which changes with the wind. It possesses meaning. The normed norm tells us what that meaning is, so that Scripture isn't wrapped up in unintelligible mystery.

armourbearer · #15 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Do you have an answer to whether or not the American Presbyterian Church was a Church when it made the Revision in 1788?

I'm not sure what relevance the answer has on this thread, but I would say she was a Church which erred by revising the Confession and opening the door to an unbiblical concept of liberty of conscience. As history shows, pragmatism rather than dogmatism influenced the revision, which is lethal to the very idea of confessionalism.

fredtgreco · #16 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

However, I questioned you about the clarity of Scripture itself. You claimed Scripture was an "unintelligible mystery" without confessions. Do you really believe this? It is a contradiction of the classic reformation teaching on the clarity of Scripture.

As answered previously, you are using the normed norm to question my statement, which only goes to proves my point. Scripture is not some nebulous stuff which changes with the wind. It possesses meaning. The normed norm tells us what that meaning is, so that Scripture isn't wrapped up in unintelligible mystery.

Matthew,

Doesn't your statement beg the question in a similar way? If Scripture is "wrapped up in an unintelligible mystery" how can we even arrive at a normed norm? Scripture must be ipso facto an intelligible non-mystery in order to compile a normed norm.