Thread: Wcf 10.4

WCF 10.4
Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God.

I'm curious about the inclusion of the following clause at the end of this section:

"And to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God."

Does anyone have historical information as to why they felt it necessary to assert such a thing here and nowhere else in the confession? It seems wholly superfluous and unnecessary to add this, as though the contraries of the other things stated in the confession could be asserted and maintained with warrant from the Word of God.

Was there some particular controversy in the assembly that sheds light on this? Or is this question pure speculation? I realize there was a lot of controversy regarding "common grace" and the light of nature at the time, but that doesn't explain the clause to me.

Paul,

My guess is that they are combating a Roman Catholic concept. Remember that Dante "saved" both Cato the Elder and the Emperor Trajan.

Thank you, Mr. Greco. I'm more asking about the emphasizing clause, however. It seems obvious that if the confession states a doctrine, then it is a matter of course that to assert the opposite is without warrant in the Word (lest why do we confess it?) I don't understand why, suddenly, at this point in the confession they said of this particular doctrine that "to assert otherwise is without warrant."

-----Added 12/14/2008 at 10:17:41 EST-----

I realize there may be no answer to this, and that it may be a pointless question; it just seems like a literary oddity in the Confession, which is normally incredibly concise and precise. I'm wondering if there's a reason.

Isn't the phrase "...is very pernicious"?
I've read the Confession many times and never read that "without warrant" bit.
Sounded wrong to me, so I checked:

10:4 Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

I don't know which version you're looking at.

Yes; that is an American change by the southern church. My note says: PCUS (1939): last clause replaced with “is without warrant of the Word of God.” Also in Book of Confessions and UPCUSA of 1958.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Isn't the phrase "...is very pernicious"?
I've read the Confession many times and never read that "without warrant" bit.
Sounded wrong to me, so I checked:

10:4 Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

I don't know which version you're looking at.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Isn't the phrase "...is very pernicious"?
I've read the Confession many times and never read that "without warrant" bit.
Sounded wrong to me, so I checked:

10:4 Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

I don't know which version you're looking at.

Ironically, the one provided on the Puritan Board as the "main one". I was just reading that section on this website, and that jumped out at me: now I know why -- it's not how mine words it. Thanks.

Chris -- thanks for the information. Do you know why they changed it?

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Chris -- thanks for the information. Do you know why they changed it?

Dunno; I only have a digest of the minutes and it doesn't cover that change except to note there were eleven changes to various paragraphs in 1939. Other changes are given more coverage in the digest.

There are other inaccuracies that I have found in the links provided under Puritan Board Reformed Confessions. IMHO, it's usually best to go to the source rather than rely upon the texts found there.

Richie! Gotta fix that!

David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error, ascribes the contrary position to the Socianians, when he comments on chap. 1, sect. 1, the insufficiency of the light of nature: "Well then, do not the Socinians err, who maintain, That men living according to the law and light of nature may be saved."

IMHO, the finest discussion of that topic I ever read was in Owen's Theologoumena Pantodapa, where his conclusion was that no man was ever saved by hope in a God reconcilable, but faith in a God reconciled in the person of Christ -- which knowledge, of course, could only come from special revelation, not being a part of natural theology.

(Sorry that was off topic, but, hey, it's my thread!)