kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
I came across the following in his essay on "Preaching and Systematic Theology" (in The Preacher and Preaching, P&R, 1986, pp268-269):
"[When preaching] it may be appropriate to indicate defects in our catechisms and confessions. Within the Westminster tradition, the greatest blemish is probably the statement that the word of God is contained [MacLeod's emphasis] in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Shorter Catechism, answer 2), which strongly suggests that there are areas of Scripture that are not the Word of God. Reservations may also have to be expressed with regard to the summary of divine attributes given in answer 4, the definition of effectual calling in answer 31, and the definition of sanctification in answer 35 (which omits all reference to definitive [MacLeod's emphasis] sanctification). So far as the confession itself is concerned, the preacher may have to distance himself from the exegetical statement (added to the doctrine that Christ alone is Head of the church) that the pope is the Man of Sin. The reason such statements cannot be passed over silently is that their very inclusion in the catechisms and confessions gives authority and currency to the distortions they reflect, and if uncorrected these will become endemic to the theology of particular traditions. In the case of the allusion to the pope as the Man of Sin, the distortion adds fuel to the fires of religious bigotry."
I have to agree with the basic thrust of his comments. One of the things that does leave me vaguely uneasy is that I often see appeals on this board made to the Standards as the final arbiter of an argument. I realize we receive them as containing the system of doctrine found in the Bible and yet we must remember, too, they are the works of men and, therefore, subject to error.
He points out some classics:
SC2: What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him? A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,(1) is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.(2)
He is right. This is simply not an adequate doctrinal statement, given the attacks on the authority of God's Word in the last century. Interestingly, the SC in Modern English reworks this answer to avoide the difficulty in the original.
SC4: What is God? A. God is a Spirit,(1) infinite,(2) eternal,(3) and unchangeable,(4) in his being,(5) wisdom,(6) power,(7) holiness,(8) justice, goodness, and truth.(9)
Is his criticism here valid? Or can we say that the Divines were simply giving us a representative list of attributes?
SC31: What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit,(1) whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery,(2) enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ,(3) and renewing our wills,(4) he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.(5) .
I'm honestly not sure why he dislikes this one...
SC35: What is sanctification? A. Sanctification is the work of God's free grace,(1) whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God,(2) and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.(3)
I'm not sure what he means by "definitive sanctification," so I cannot really evaluate his criticism.
CF 25:6: There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.(1) Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.(2)]
I have to agree with him here. The Divines calling the pope THE Antichrist is flatly wrong. He may be AN anti-Christ in the same sense that anyone who promotes false doctrine is. To go beyond that is simply to ignore what the Bible has to say about anti-Christ the man and to display a militant, anti-Rome attitude that really impedes reaching out to them with the Gospel.
I'd be interested to hear feedback on MacLeod's observations? Do we go to far with our adherence to the Standards? Have we, in a de facto way, supplanted the authority of the Bible with the authority of Westminster?
Just talking...
"[When preaching] it may be appropriate to indicate defects in our catechisms and confessions. Within the Westminster tradition, the greatest blemish is probably the statement that the word of God is contained [MacLeod's emphasis] in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Shorter Catechism, answer 2), which strongly suggests that there are areas of Scripture that are not the Word of God. Reservations may also have to be expressed with regard to the summary of divine attributes given in answer 4, the definition of effectual calling in answer 31, and the definition of sanctification in answer 35 (which omits all reference to definitive [MacLeod's emphasis] sanctification). So far as the confession itself is concerned, the preacher may have to distance himself from the exegetical statement (added to the doctrine that Christ alone is Head of the church) that the pope is the Man of Sin. The reason such statements cannot be passed over silently is that their very inclusion in the catechisms and confessions gives authority and currency to the distortions they reflect, and if uncorrected these will become endemic to the theology of particular traditions. In the case of the allusion to the pope as the Man of Sin, the distortion adds fuel to the fires of religious bigotry."
I have to agree with the basic thrust of his comments. One of the things that does leave me vaguely uneasy is that I often see appeals on this board made to the Standards as the final arbiter of an argument. I realize we receive them as containing the system of doctrine found in the Bible and yet we must remember, too, they are the works of men and, therefore, subject to error.
He points out some classics:
SC2: What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him? A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,(1) is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.(2)
He is right. This is simply not an adequate doctrinal statement, given the attacks on the authority of God's Word in the last century. Interestingly, the SC in Modern English reworks this answer to avoide the difficulty in the original.
SC4: What is God? A. God is a Spirit,(1) infinite,(2) eternal,(3) and unchangeable,(4) in his being,(5) wisdom,(6) power,(7) holiness,(8) justice, goodness, and truth.(9)
Is his criticism here valid? Or can we say that the Divines were simply giving us a representative list of attributes?
SC31: What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit,(1) whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery,(2) enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ,(3) and renewing our wills,(4) he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.(5) .
I'm honestly not sure why he dislikes this one...
SC35: What is sanctification? A. Sanctification is the work of God's free grace,(1) whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God,(2) and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.(3)
I'm not sure what he means by "definitive sanctification," so I cannot really evaluate his criticism.
CF 25:6: There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.(1) Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.(2)]
I have to agree with him here. The Divines calling the pope THE Antichrist is flatly wrong. He may be AN anti-Christ in the same sense that anyone who promotes false doctrine is. To go beyond that is simply to ignore what the Bible has to say about anti-Christ the man and to display a militant, anti-Rome attitude that really impedes reaching out to them with the Gospel.
I'd be interested to hear feedback on MacLeod's observations? Do we go to far with our adherence to the Standards? Have we, in a de facto way, supplanted the authority of the Bible with the authority of Westminster?
Just talking...
