How Can We Be Sure the Westminster Standards are True?

[OPC'n]

You are spot on. I love the WCF, but worry that our drive for the best doctrine puts the cart in front of the horse.

There's certainly a risk for this to happen. Pride in knowledge comes from all places including the accumulation of knowledge from the Bible itself. If all we are doing is accumulating knowledge in order to be the superior person, it's all dung for the accumulator. However, if we are accumulating knowledge in order to know God and his purposes fully it is profitable.

If you think about it, once you go from reading the Scripture to explaining it (the preaching of God's word in worship, Bible studies, Sunday school, confessions, spreading the Gospel, etc) you are giving a confession of what the Bible states. We are constantly doing this. We don't just read the Bible aloud then close the book and send everyone home. I think our motive and sincerity in learning God's word is important....are we doing it in obedience to God or to make us look superior? I think we all fall into both camps at times I know I have.

I believe those who wrote the WCF and similar ones did so to glorify God and expect those who adhere to it to do the same leaving their pride in the ditch. I also believe that the writers of the WCF expected the readers to have their Bibles out in order to confirm what they wrote was Scripturally supported. I believe they would have thought it folly for us not to do so.

In the end, I find the WCF a faithful composite of what the Bible states and therefore what I believe. There is really nothing in the WCF that I don't agree with. These men did an excellent job in putting down on paper what the church believes in. I know I personally couldn't improve upon their work.

 

[jwithnell]

No disagreement.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well noted Sarah. The argument for a Confession goes like this:

1. 2 Tim 3:16-18 teaches us that all Scriptures is breathed out by God and given for our upbuilding. It presumes that the Scriptures itself can be understood and applied.

2. Ephesians 4 teaches us that Christ gives gifts to the Church in the form of teachers and pastors toward the end of the unity of the faith.

3. If Scripture is clear and there are men trained and gifted by Christ and His Spirit to explain the Scriptures then we should be able to confess the same things in the Scripture together as a Church.

It is very strange, on the one hand, to claim that a person believes in the Scriptures and that they can come to a knowledge of what they teach and then be suspicious that a Church that believes the same has actually written down what they believe the Scriptures teach.

There ought to be an expectation of people to go to a person with knowledge of the Scriptures and a "track record" of following Christ as a mature individual that a Christian can ask questions of that person. We should be able to rely upon the understanding and handling of the Scriptures in the same way we have some confidence in physicians to diagnose a medical illness. The Puritans called minister physicians of the soul because they had confidence that if they studied the "body of divinity" that you could put your finger on the nature of a person's spiritual struggles and issues and point them in the correct direction about what the Scriptures teach on a subject.

What is the nature of man? Should we be in doubt about such a question or does Scripture teach us something that can be written down and remembered?

What is the nature of the Trinity? Does it matter? Does it relate to salvation? Should we write such insights down?

What relevance is it that Christ is fully God and fully Man to salvation? What relevance is it that Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant? What is a Covenant? Does the answer to any of these questions matter and should we write them down?

It is folly to state that you have a lot of confidence or trust in the Scriptures but that it's only valuable as a theoretical document because the moment you come to any conclusions about what it teaches then you're in the realm of fallible opinion. A confession serves as a critical component of helping provide a way to understand what the Scriptures teach so that application can be made into the lives of people.

 

[Edward]

Given the church is the final authority

Scripture is the final authority. You don't have to accept the other side's "givens" before engaging them.

 

[chuckd]

Scripture is the final authority. You don't have to accept the other side's "givens" before engaging them.

I know I don't have to. Just one tool.

 

[Myson]

This is the root of the question posed to the OP. Of course, as an Orthodox Christian, his friend would say the Orthodox church. To be honest, out of the two who believe the church is the final authority, Orthodox or Roman, I would say the Orthodox have the upper hand. From that perspective, the creed should not have been changed without another council.

A couple of other unrelated thoughts.
1. Given the church is the final authority, which ecumenical councils should we accept as handed down by "the" church? Why those and not others?
1a. Councils have erred. How do you explain how the church is the final authority yet they can err?
2. There are multiple "schools" within Orthodoxy. How can you be sure that a specific school's of interpretation of Scripture is the right one?

That's very helpful. It's always easier to see the grass as more consistent on the other side, when they are in the same boat. Thanks!

 

[Myson]

I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet that this is a common Orthodox and Catholic trap question. I've had several people try it on me. Since all Protestants claim the Bible is true, but they believe differently, how do you know which to pick? The argument is designed to make you admit that maybe the church should have the ultimate say on what is true.

Of course, those folks have their own dilemma: Which church do you pick? Orthodox or Roman? And in what century?

More importantly, the question makes one glaring, wrong assumption. It presupposes that we are not able to study the Bible and see which doctrine is true, or that it isn't reasonable to expect anyone to put that much effort into Bible study. We just have to pick, and who can tell which is true? So the argument goes.
Well, the Bible is not that dense. The Spirit speaks clearly. I can tell what's true, and so can you, if we are willing to put in the effort and study the Bible. That's the best response, followed by the line, "Would you like to study it with me?"

Thanks so much! I should've applied my training in presuppositionalism more thoroughly on this one. Maybe it's just my fascination with the Orthodox Church and their liturgy that I tend to not think critically of their practices, and when I am confronted on something I believe to be true, I haven't done the homework ahead of time to "give an answer." Thanks again, your suggestion on making it an evangelistic tool was very helpful.

 

[Myson]

I'm barely a laymen myself, but I would look at the history of how the WCF came to be, and who it was who complied it. When we read the names of those involved in writing the Confessions it is a who's who of the Puritan world of that time. It was not put together willy nilly, but each point was debated and it took 4 years to accomplish. Add to that, the historic creeds and confessions were written to combat the heresies that came along over the years. To affirm the faith.

That's such a helpful reminder that the confession didn't come out of thin air but was prayerfully waded through for years. Especially with so many people involved as well! I think that's a powerful assurance that the Spirit was moving in his people.

 

[Myson]

I think in order to have confidence in the body of teaching of the Standards, you have to believe that there IS a pattern of sound doctrine (2 Timothy 1:13); and that God has promised he will preserve it through his church. If you are settled in Protestantism and then Calvinism, you're on your way to Covenant theology. Once you're settled that you do hold to a covenantal view of biblical history, then you should be on your way to confessionalism due to your view of the Church and how God has preserved the pattern of sound doctrine. Confidence in the Standards as the fruition of all that body of truth that was won before, truths that Protestant, Calvinistic people hold to, comes from understanding how God has promised to work. He hasn't left his people in the dark. But Christians who haven't come to covenant theology won't see that; and they'll be troubled by questions regarding "who has the right interpretation of the Bible."

I hadn't thought about using the Covenants as a hermeneutic; mostly because I'm not as confidently schooled in them as I would like to be. You make a great point however - If there is a pattern of sound doctrine, and God has made a promise to his church, then shouldn't we expect there to be a consistent doctrine taught/built upon through the ages? Thanks for that insight

 

[Myson]

Something else I learned in this (for anyone else who might have questions about it on their own) was the proper role of Church Tradition in these debates. Both the Reformed and the Roman/Eastern churches believe that the Church Fathers are authoritative, but in vastly different ways. For the latter, the Fathers and early creeds were authoritative as Kings, meant to lord over us what we are to believe and what we are to deny. For Calvin, and later Reformers, we see the Church Fathers as servant leaders. That is, they do not lord over us beliefs, but rather they serve us to give testimony to the Scriptures and the Christ they proclaim. As 1 Corinthians 3:21-23 states,

"So let noone boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."

The main point is that, "All are yours," meaning they exist, not to be lords over us, but to bear witnesses to Jesus for us. This was a lightbulb moment for me, and one that really helped me see the proper role of the Fathers and their influence on the faith. While they are authoritative, they are authoritative only insofar as they are consistent with the Scriptures. This is servant leadership, as Christ Himself bore witness to his Father. Likewise, no one should look to the Church Fathers and say, "We know this to be true because Clement and Origen agreed on this," but rather, "We know this to be true because the Scriptures are clear on it, and to prove that they have been clear, see the great cloud of witnesses who have been enlightened by the Spirit in this area, and developed it further, silencing those who disagreed with God's word."

 

[jonpeter]

I see that, but I'm just worried that my faith in this standard may be unwarranted. Certainly justified, but epistemologically, how do we know? And if we say, "Well because the Bible seems clear to us," by what standard can we say, "Objectively speaking, we can KNOW the Bible says this beyond any shadow of a doubt." Whether or not we're trying to convince others is another matter. All I'm wondering is the warrant for confidence in our own readings that don't lead to some kind of individualistic pluralism, that everyone "interprets what is right in their own eyes."

Hi

A principle of hermeneutics says: the scriptures interprets itselfs, it means that the scriptures are infallible and men are fallible, so our interpretations are fallible. The only man infallible is Christ. This principle was defined by reformers agains roman catholic church that says that they are the ones that give the rigth interpretation of the scriptures

These words are from pastor Javier Muñoz (used translator):
If I say that my body of doctrine is inerrant, I deny total depravity and proclaim myself an apostle. On the other hand, I am absolutely convinced that what I believe is biblically correct, otherwise my conscience would condemn me. I must live in the tension of those two realities. In doing so, I totally depend on the Holy Spirit. I live confident in him. And therefore I can be humble like Christ, which is my greatest goal, because it is the goal of Christ for me.

 

[KMK]

If I say that my body of doctrine is inerrant, I deny total depravity and proclaim myself an apostle.

I am not sure in what sense you are using the word 'inerrant'. It is usually a word that is used about the Scriptures, not a confession. Do I deny total depravity if I believe that WCF Chapter 6, Paragraph 4 is inerrant?

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions."

 

[jonpeter]

I am not sure in what sense you are using the word 'inerrant'. It is usually a word that is used about the Scriptures, not a confession. Do I deny total depravity if I believe that WCF Chapter 6, Paragraph 4 is inerrant?

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions."

I mean that in our interpretation of the bible we can have errors, because we are fallen beings and we are not free of mistakes. But at the same time I'm convinced that my confession of faith is true

I have faith that what bible says is true as its God's word
But I dont have that kind of faith in my ability to interpret the bible because I'm a fallen being. If I think that my ability to interpret the bible is perfect, then I'm not consistent with my doctrine of being corrupted by sin

I must be convinced and at the same time must be humble