How do you view the confessions?
- Thread starter kceaster
- Start date
- Status
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
The confessions are a very important guide, but they are not a tightrope. Scripture itself is the only tightrope.
I would say that if we deviate from the confessions, then we should have really good reasons for doing so. We should not disagree with the confessions flippantly or lightly.
I would say that if we deviate from the confessions, then we should have really good reasons for doing so. We should not disagree with the confessions flippantly or lightly.
Confessions of faith are an elaboration and public confession of what a church believes the Scriptures teach. If a church doesn't believe something they should not have it in their confession. 
cultureshock
Puritan Board Freshman
Perimeter. The confessions aren't exhaustive statements on everything, nor were they meant to be.
For example: postmil or amil? I would argue that both are allowed by the WCF.
Brian
[Edited on 2-6-2006 by cultureshock]
For example: postmil or amil? I would argue that both are allowed by the WCF.
Brian
[Edited on 2-6-2006 by cultureshock]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Ditto
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I would say they are a perimeter and guide but they aren't exhaustive. They must also be considered with the author's intent. We should not be allowed to pour our own meaning into their words or try to make allowances for deviant views where they made none (i.e. non--literal creation days, etc.). If you wish to change what the church allows or beleives, then seek to amend the Confessions, not redefine the words.
Presbyrino
Puritan Board Freshman
MEGA
My vote was for perimeter as well.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Perimeter within their original context.
Patrick,
I agree that is the way things should be (I mean the amendment process); but what do you do in a church that has inherited a long standing understanding, or misunderstanding, at odds with the original intent of the Westminster Assembly? I mean that has simply "happened" without any amendment process. You may have literally had generations vowing to upholding somethng that was not intended by the authors.
I agree that is the way things should be (I mean the amendment process); but what do you do in a church that has inherited a long standing understanding, or misunderstanding, at odds with the original intent of the Westminster Assembly? I mean that has simply "happened" without any amendment process. You may have literally had generations vowing to upholding somethng that was not intended by the authors.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
In addition,
does the Church have the right or authority to stipulate the meaning of the confession outside of amending it? For instance, the issue of creation. Both the OPC and PCA allow latitude in this area. Also concerning the Psalms. Both the OPC and PCA allow for hymns in their respective Directories of Worship and these directories are to be in accord with the Standards.
does the Church have the right or authority to stipulate the meaning of the confession outside of amending it? For instance, the issue of creation. Both the OPC and PCA allow latitude in this area. Also concerning the Psalms. Both the OPC and PCA allow for hymns in their respective Directories of Worship and these directories are to be in accord with the Standards.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Tightrope 
My reasons are based not on specific confessions and practices, but on the entire reasoning behind having confessions.
Regarding exactly what the confession states, it should be strictly held as being exactly what is believed. If the confession is accurate, then it rightly states what Holy Scripture proclaims. So then ask yourself, do you or do you not agree with the confession? We all have a confession of faith within our minds that we strictly hold to until shown we are in error.
To allow latitude to the confession means to allow latitude to scripture - THAT IS IF the confession is agreed to as being a summary of the truths of Scripture. If the confession is not agreed to be the summary of the truths of scripture then why is it in the confession?
If the confession is wrong, then change it, but scripture is never wrong.
Latitude is given with the faith of those who are within the confessional church. Not all are going to understand all of scripture and the confession as soon as they become Christians, but the church teachers and rulers who are mature should hold fast to their confession and teach it with great conviction of its orthodoxy.
I don't agree that the confessions are infallible or inerrant. I believe they are treated that way even though such is denied. The fact that the 1646 WCF is still held by many, says to me that they think that it is entirely correct in it's summary of scriptural truths. That being said why allow latitude on what scripture says unless there is a feeling that the confession may be wrong? Why are we so careful not to amend or change the WCF? Does it need more clarity?
As a whole, the latitude is for the areas that is not explicitly set forth in scripture and thus not explicitly expressed in the confession. We allow latitude for headcoverings, birth control, qualifications for ushers, types of furniture in the church, etc, etc. But if the confession is right in stating what the Bible as a whole says about Justification, God's Eternal Decrees, the sacraments, Providence, the Covenant of Works, etc, then hold to those orthodox beliefs with a firm grip for that is exactly what scripture proclaims, is it not?
Peter gave a confession to the question of who Jesus is. He did not quote scripture, but gave a summary in his own words. If he truly believed that his summary correctly explained scripture, should he hold to that confession tightly or with latitude?
Maybe I am describing a utopian concept over a practical church document.
[Edited on 2-6-2006 by ChristopherPaul]
My reasons are based not on specific confessions and practices, but on the entire reasoning behind having confessions.
Regarding exactly what the confession states, it should be strictly held as being exactly what is believed. If the confession is accurate, then it rightly states what Holy Scripture proclaims. So then ask yourself, do you or do you not agree with the confession? We all have a confession of faith within our minds that we strictly hold to until shown we are in error.
To allow latitude to the confession means to allow latitude to scripture - THAT IS IF the confession is agreed to as being a summary of the truths of Scripture. If the confession is not agreed to be the summary of the truths of scripture then why is it in the confession?
If the confession is wrong, then change it, but scripture is never wrong.
Latitude is given with the faith of those who are within the confessional church. Not all are going to understand all of scripture and the confession as soon as they become Christians, but the church teachers and rulers who are mature should hold fast to their confession and teach it with great conviction of its orthodoxy.
I don't agree that the confessions are infallible or inerrant. I believe they are treated that way even though such is denied. The fact that the 1646 WCF is still held by many, says to me that they think that it is entirely correct in it's summary of scriptural truths. That being said why allow latitude on what scripture says unless there is a feeling that the confession may be wrong? Why are we so careful not to amend or change the WCF? Does it need more clarity?
As a whole, the latitude is for the areas that is not explicitly set forth in scripture and thus not explicitly expressed in the confession. We allow latitude for headcoverings, birth control, qualifications for ushers, types of furniture in the church, etc, etc. But if the confession is right in stating what the Bible as a whole says about Justification, God's Eternal Decrees, the sacraments, Providence, the Covenant of Works, etc, then hold to those orthodox beliefs with a firm grip for that is exactly what scripture proclaims, is it not?
Peter gave a confession to the question of who Jesus is. He did not quote scripture, but gave a summary in his own words. If he truly believed that his summary correctly explained scripture, should he hold to that confession tightly or with latitude?
Maybe I am describing a utopian concept over a practical church document.
[Edited on 2-6-2006 by ChristopherPaul]
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not entirely happy with these two ideas set in opposition to one another. The "tightrope" selection seems to suggest strict subscription, and "perimeter" loose subscription. But, is that what you mean to communicate in your options?
If one "slips" on points of the Confession, it does not necessarily mean they've "slipped" into Hell. It means they are denied ecclesiastical fellowship. But the "perimeter" idea seems to suggest that contained in the Confession is someone of a "system" that can be pulled out of it and agreed to, without agreeing to particulars. If that's what you mean, I think that's wrong--in actuallity, Scripture contains a "system" (so to say) and we have summarized that system in the Confession. In other words, there is no system in the Confession to be taken out and agreed with, but in fact, the Confession is the system.
To take a scruple with exclusive psalmnody (if you think the Confession requires that) is a small thing . . . you can't just go and scruple anything in the Confession! For this reason, I agree with the previous poster.
So, if you mean by the "tightrope" option a strict subscription and the Confession setting the bounds for ecclesiastical fellowship, then I'll vote "tightrope."
Honestly, I think a "line in the sand" option would be a better way to describe strict subscription instead of "tightrope." 
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I would agree with Chris Coldwell's first post
There certainly is lattitude within the confessions for various views, such as the millennial views, lapsarian views, etc. And general synods have approved some views as being acceptable views to have. But this lattitude in the confessional standards is not the same as doctrine coming out of the confessional standards. These are two very, very different things. A freedom to hold to some views as acceptable is hardly the same as saying that the Confession teaches any one of those views. For example, it is more than just significant that the Assembly is often cited as being predominantly Postmillennial, if not wholly so; yet they left out any clear indication in that direction. And if some doctrines are a result of personal persuasion in that direction, it was more than likely unintentional, and is a possibly amendable article.
A liberty of conscience is a liberty of conscience to all, not just for the minister of the Word. For general synods have approved three distinct and different millennial views on the same footing. It cannot be that the Confession teaches all three as being Biblical doctrine.
So there is room for personal liberty of conscience within the confessional standard. That is, the Bible teaches us doctrine, but also allows for personal discretion on some matters without harming the faith and reverence for that Word of God. It would harm others to dictate what is meant for liberty of conscience as being taught as binding doctrine.
The doctrinal statements, the covenenantal documents of the churches, are a limit of doctrine, not to be added to or subtracted from without the same authority, Not because they are the church's doctrinal statements, but because they have been accepted as a summation of the Bible's doctrines. Thus, in that respect they are a perimeter. Some walk the tightrope, coming ever so close to claiming for doctrinal teaching what is merely their own opinion, or the church's opinion, while some have no difficulty making mandatory what has never been so, nor is clearly taught in Scripture according to the witness of the Church. And some think it only a general guideline from which they can form their own particular brand of Reformation teaching.
The point, however, is what the Bible obligates upon us, not what men obligate upon us. And the Confessions ought to be seen not as documents of men, but of the Church. Have the men been duly authorized? Did they pray to commence the Assembly? Did they read Scripture upon the meeting and upon every decision? Did they seek the guidance of the Spirit in conformity with the teachings of Scripture concerning how Christ intended to lead His church through the ages following His ascension? If so, and subsequent assemblies following the same submission have ratified the decisions, then they are no longer merely the decisions of men, but of men ordained to lead the Church by Christ Himself. They are to be received.
Yet it is also true that they may contain error. And without harming any of the previous decisions, such errors may be corrected with the assurance that those same Fathers who made those errors would be in hearty agreement, as all are willingly submissive to the same Lord and Head of the Church.
That's my view. If you want to believe in one of the three millennial positions then go right ahead; you have the Church's blessing. If you want to bind your view on others, then you do not have the Church's blessing, for they did bind anyone, and did not include that in the Confession of Faith. And we know that this controversy has been there all along, dating very, very far back; yet the Church has made no declarative statement on something they cannot know, which the Scripture does not reveal sufficiently. Their silence on those matters testifies to that.
[Edited on 2-6-2006 by JohnV]
but go on to add a thing or two. Yes, it is true that the Confessions are not exhaustive, in the context of containing all doctrine possible. But it is exhaustive concerning all that the Church has approved for teaching as having full Biblical authority. That does not mean that everything has been revealed to us yet. History will show whether the Church is granted the guidance of the Holy Spirit against errors dominating Christ's church.
There certainly is lattitude within the confessions for various views, such as the millennial views, lapsarian views, etc. And general synods have approved some views as being acceptable views to have. But this lattitude in the confessional standards is not the same as doctrine coming out of the confessional standards. These are two very, very different things. A freedom to hold to some views as acceptable is hardly the same as saying that the Confession teaches any one of those views. For example, it is more than just significant that the Assembly is often cited as being predominantly Postmillennial, if not wholly so; yet they left out any clear indication in that direction. And if some doctrines are a result of personal persuasion in that direction, it was more than likely unintentional, and is a possibly amendable article.
A liberty of conscience is a liberty of conscience to all, not just for the minister of the Word. For general synods have approved three distinct and different millennial views on the same footing. It cannot be that the Confession teaches all three as being Biblical doctrine.
So there is room for personal liberty of conscience within the confessional standard. That is, the Bible teaches us doctrine, but also allows for personal discretion on some matters without harming the faith and reverence for that Word of God. It would harm others to dictate what is meant for liberty of conscience as being taught as binding doctrine.
The doctrinal statements, the covenenantal documents of the churches, are a limit of doctrine, not to be added to or subtracted from without the same authority, Not because they are the church's doctrinal statements, but because they have been accepted as a summation of the Bible's doctrines. Thus, in that respect they are a perimeter. Some walk the tightrope, coming ever so close to claiming for doctrinal teaching what is merely their own opinion, or the church's opinion, while some have no difficulty making mandatory what has never been so, nor is clearly taught in Scripture according to the witness of the Church. And some think it only a general guideline from which they can form their own particular brand of Reformation teaching.
The point, however, is what the Bible obligates upon us, not what men obligate upon us. And the Confessions ought to be seen not as documents of men, but of the Church. Have the men been duly authorized? Did they pray to commence the Assembly? Did they read Scripture upon the meeting and upon every decision? Did they seek the guidance of the Spirit in conformity with the teachings of Scripture concerning how Christ intended to lead His church through the ages following His ascension? If so, and subsequent assemblies following the same submission have ratified the decisions, then they are no longer merely the decisions of men, but of men ordained to lead the Church by Christ Himself. They are to be received.
Yet it is also true that they may contain error. And without harming any of the previous decisions, such errors may be corrected with the assurance that those same Fathers who made those errors would be in hearty agreement, as all are willingly submissive to the same Lord and Head of the Church.
That's my view. If you want to believe in one of the three millennial positions then go right ahead; you have the Church's blessing. If you want to bind your view on others, then you do not have the Church's blessing, for they did bind anyone, and did not include that in the Confession of Faith. And we know that this controversy has been there all along, dating very, very far back; yet the Church has made no declarative statement on something they cannot know, which the Scripture does not reveal sufficiently. Their silence on those matters testifies to that.
[Edited on 2-6-2006 by JohnV]
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't think the Church has the right to redefine words. If they wish to include hymns in worship, then they should amend the confession to say "psalms and hymns." If they wish to say that "in the space of six days" is not important (which is their defacto position), then they should remove it from the Confession. Otherwise we are deceiving the world as to what we really believe. Any average Joe who reads "in the space of six days" is going to think 6 natural days, and he will be confused to hear that the Confession doesn't mean what it says. Why not redefine "justification" or "faith" and keep the Confession as is? We live in an age of postmodern language twisting confusion. If we are not clear about what we believe the Scriptures teach, then we might as well burn the Confession and join the PCUSA.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The point, I would think, is whether Scripture teaches it or not. The Scripture surely teaches what the Confession says about creation, but more it cannot say because Scripture does not say. If some want to believe in some view of creation that technically is still within the bounds of the Confession, but is not the plain meaning of "within six days", then they may be free to do so. But that is a whole different ball game from declaring so from the pulpit, where the preacher is supposed to be a representative of Christ teaching on Christ's behalf. After all, why do we ordain men if all it is is a licence to explicate their opinions? Do not all licentiates have to respond affirmatively to the question: "Is preaching the Word of God?"
The Confession does not stipulate things it has no authority to stipulate. It has to be clearly taught in Scripture, with no room for human addition to it. Thus even "good and necessary inference" is a result, not of human reason, but of necessity from doctrine itself: i.e., though not specifically stated, it cannot but be so.
So these are matters of lattitude for church governors for the good of the church, not to bind consciences. Some would sing only the Psalms, but it would be for the peace of the church, not to condemn those who would like to sing hymns.
Well, that's my opinion, Wayne; for what its worth.
[Edited on 2-6-2006 by JohnV]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Let me just briefly add that I view a distinction between the Confession of Faith, the Larger, and the Shorter Catechism as a group, and the Forms of Government and of Worship as a group. The former is doctrine, the latter rulership. In the former case there is no lattitude except for personal conscience; while in the latter there is lattitude as to the rule itself.
Traditionally it has been so in the Dutch churches. The Three Forms of Unity, and the Form of Subscription that limits the eldership and ministry to the confines of doctrine, are unimpeachable. But the Church Order has been changed due to circumstances and time. The Church Order rules such things as the Forms in the Presbyterian churches rule by comparison.
So when I first saw all the documents when I first took up the issue of joining the RPCGA, and later the OPC, I simply took the subsidiary Forms in that light, to be an example of Biblical discretionery rule, but not hard and fast doctrine as to the rulership. In other words, the Forms are not doctrine like the Confession and the Catechisms.
It may be, though, that Presbyterians don't see it that way.
Traditionally it has been so in the Dutch churches. The Three Forms of Unity, and the Form of Subscription that limits the eldership and ministry to the confines of doctrine, are unimpeachable. But the Church Order has been changed due to circumstances and time. The Church Order rules such things as the Forms in the Presbyterian churches rule by comparison.
So when I first saw all the documents when I first took up the issue of joining the RPCGA, and later the OPC, I simply took the subsidiary Forms in that light, to be an example of Biblical discretionery rule, but not hard and fast doctrine as to the rulership. In other words, the Forms are not doctrine like the Confession and the Catechisms.
It may be, though, that Presbyterians don't see it that way.
Intro to the 1689 LBCF, as he amended it for his church:
"œThis ancient document is the most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us. It is not issued as an authoritative rule or code of faith, whereby you may be fettered, but as a means of edification in righteousness. It is an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of those Holy Scriptures by which all confessions are to be measured. We hold to the humbling truths of God's sovereign grace in the salvation of lost sinners. Salvation is through Christ alone and by faith alone." - C.H. Spurgeon
"œThis ancient document is the most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us. It is not issued as an authoritative rule or code of faith, whereby you may be fettered, but as a means of edification in righteousness. It is an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of those Holy Scriptures by which all confessions are to be measured. We hold to the humbling truths of God's sovereign grace in the salvation of lost sinners. Salvation is through Christ alone and by faith alone." - C.H. Spurgeon
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
The easy answer is to discard the faulty tradition and return to the position of actually believing and meaning what we say. But that would require some amendments wouldn't it?
I don't know why Presbyterians are so averse to this today, but amending is better than redefining. At least then everyone knows where you stand and there is no ambiguity or suspicion on the part of outsiders who may question the doctrinal faithfulness of those in your ranks. That is another beneficial thing about all these Puritans and Westminster Divines being reprinted today. There is very little left to question as to what the author's intent was. It sounds like a divinely providential remedy to all these attacks upon our confessional language and what it "allows".
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
Patrick, do you see any issues besides (perhaps) the singing of ssalms and six-day creation being "reinterpreted"?Originally posted by puritansailor
The easy answer is to discard the faulty tradition and return to the position of actually believing and meaning what we say. But that would require some amendments wouldn't it?
That is another beneficial thing about all these Puritans and Westminster Divines being reprinted today. There is very little left to question as to what the author's intent was. It sounds like a divinely providential remedy to all these attacks upon our confessional language and what it "allows".
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I was just using them as examples. I know the Confession is not exhaustive on everything, but I do believe that what it does speak on, it speaks on rather clearly, providing us a rather solid fence. But I am concerned with the trend at seeing "what fits with the language" of the Confession rather than "what the Confession says." To me that is just a hole in the dike, and it will lead us down the same road following the PCUSA. It's becoming more of an issue in the PCA because of the Federal Vision stuff and their looser views on subscription, but the OPC will probably follow suit as well if they don't get these issues on justification figured out. Sabbath issues probably would fit that as well, but usually elders state their exception there because they acknowledge what the Confession teaches. I know I'm just an ignorant seminary student who has much to learn but this stuff troubles me. What good is a confession of faith when it's not your confession?
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Casey, what I meant was not in terms of subscription, but in terms of interpretation and application. But this is not my question. Someone has been talking with me about it and he gets the impression that there are those within Reformed denominations who believe that their interpretation forms a litmus test by which one passes or fails.
One such issue would be the Pope as an antichrist or as the antichrist. The way the WCF is amended in America, we would say he is an antichrist. But others like it the way it was and so there is no latitude. In that case, we've slipped off the tightrope.
I agree with your assessment, but in areas like creation, In my humble opinion there is no reason to part company with those who have a day-age view. However, if one believes the confession is a tightrope, they may part company on that one point. In other words,, they believe that one point of the confession and not the system of the confession is worth fighting for and dividing over.
So, if you mean by the "tightrope" option a strict subscription and the Confession setting the bounds for ecclesiastical fellowship, then I'll vote "tightrope."
And see, there is a boundary on a tightrope as well as in a perimeter, right? The framework of a perimeter keeps things within bounds, but as Hamlet said, "I could be bounded in a nutshell and consider myself a king of infinite space." There are boundaries in a nutshell. But for the confession, it is too tight.
The OPC has been accused of splitting theological hairs. And perhaps I've answered the question. Everyone has boundaries even if they are so tight that only one person can go through at a time. The question may really be where are our boundaries within the OPC, PCA, RPCNA, RPCGA, etc. It really is that where we put our boundaries is where we part company with each other.
But if we are ever going to have unity on this earth, those boundaries are going to have to be agreed upon. And that is the difficulty.
In Christ,
KC
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
The perimeter lines also show us who is willing to go right up to the edge without stepping out. That is a danger in latitude. But it also shows the fallenness of our consciences is some regards. There were lines draw of earlier perimeters that some of us are no longer inhibited to cross, being given more "pasture" to feed in. It's the old saying, "give 'em an inch, they'll take a yard."
Perhaps there is a middle road here somewhere.
In Christ,
KC
Perhaps there is a middle road here somewhere.
In Christ,
KC
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
Well, it's not that I disagree with you--but the OPC has long held (correct me if I'm wrong) the practice of strict subscription. I do believe that this issue, to some degree, is the cause of our continued separation from our PCA brethren.Originally posted by puritansailor
I was just using them as examples. I know the Confession is not exhaustive on everything, but I do believe that what it does speak on, it speaks on rather clearly, providing us a rather solid fence. But I am concerned with the trend at seeing "what fits with the language" of the Confession rather than "what the Confession says." To me that is just a hole in the dike, and it will lead us down the same road following the PCUSA. It's becoming more of an issue in the PCA because of the Federal Vision stuff and their looser views on subscription, but the OPC will probably follow suit as well if they don't get these issues on justification figured out. Sabbath issues probably would fit that as well, but usually elders state their exception there because they acknowledge what the Confession teaches. I know I'm just an ignorant seminary student who has much to learn but this stuff troubles me. What good is a confession of faith when it's not your confession?
Sure; easy to say. I'm not really arguing with you on anything as I agree with the ideal and am in favor of strict subscription to Confessions of Faith. My suspicion is the reason that admendments are not made is that it is hard work and that many are not in a context that favors strict subscription so what does it really matter?....
I'm not really arguing with you on anything as I agree with the ideal and am in favor of strict subscription to Confessions of Faith. My suspicion is the reason that admendments are not made is that it is hard work and that many are not in a context that favors strict subscription so what does it really matter?.... Originally posted by puritansailor
The easy answer is to discard the faulty tradition and return to the position of actually believing and meaning what we say. But that would require some amendments wouldn't it?
That is another beneficial thing about all these Puritans and Westminster Divines being reprinted today. There is very little left to question as to what the author's intent was. It sounds like a divinely providential remedy to all these attacks upon our confessional language and what it "allows".
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Sure; easy to say.
Originally posted by puritansailor
The easy answer is to discard the faulty tradition and return to the position of actually believing and meaning what we say. But that would require some amendments wouldn't it?
That is another beneficial thing about all these Puritans and Westminster Divines being reprinted today. There is very little left to question as to what the author's intent was. It sounds like a divinely providential remedy to all these attacks upon our confessional language and what it "allows".
It is a whole lot easier to amend the BCO, and allow for latitude than the Standards or create a "study committee" to come up with something. And this is why I think we do not go ahead and amend the Standards.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Considering Kevin's comments about interpreting the Standards, I posted this paper by Lig Duncan awhile back and thought it might be helpful in this discussion:
Recently, an able OPC minister and historical theologian, John V. Fesko has challenged David W. Hall's methodology for determining the original intent of the Westminster Assembly of Divines on the matter of the nature or length of the creation days, and even more significantly, has challenged the very status of original intent as a hermeneutical tool in establishing the meaning of a confessional document for the church. His concerns are at least twofold. First, he questions whether Hall's interpretive approach is a legitimate way of establishing the meaning of the Confession on the subject. Second, he is concerned that if Hall's "erroneous" approach is adopted, it could lead to a dangerous latitude or a restrictive narrowing on other issues.
The Question of Interpretive Method
The first thing that needs to be said in response is that Fesko misrepresents Hall's methodology. Because this is the case, his whole critique misses the mark. Fesko summarizes the methodology he attributes to Hall this way: "if a person can find a view other than six twenty-four hour literalism, then this would legitimize the permissibility of other views" [of the Confession's statement 'in the space of six days'].
Having spent hours in discussion with Mr. Hall on these matters, I can assure that he does not argue thusly: "In a comprehensive perusal of the extant writings of members of the Assembly, no divines have been found who held to a view other than 24-hour day creation days, therefore the Confession must mean to assert 24-hour creation days in its phrase 'in the space of six days' and therefore anyone differing with the Confession on this point ought to have to state his exception to it; conversely, if we were to find any member of the Assembly who held to another view, we would have to declare the phrase ambiguous or open on the matter of the creation days." That's not Mr. Hall's argument. In other words, David Hall doesn't think that the way you figure out what the Confession means is to go count up the varying individual members' opinions, gleaned from their published writings, and then impose the majority view upon any construction found in the text of the Confession or allow for diversity in subscription to the Confession if any diversity is discovered in the divines' private opinions.
Mr. Hall's logic, rather, goes like this.
(1) The Confession uses a phrase not found in Scripture in its chapter on creation. This phrase asserts that God created the world "in the space of six days." This phrase, in and of itself, seems to suggest that the Confession is specifying something positively about the nature and duration of the creation week.
(2) Though many respected late-nineteenth century interpreters of the Confession argue that the Confession is non-committal on the issue, at least one of their number (who does not embrace a '24-hour view') asserts that the Confession's original intent is that God created in six literal days, and no commentator on the Confession prior to 1850 suggests that there are various acceptable views of this clause.
(3) Lo and behold, it turns out that Calvin, who was a literalist on the nature of the days [pace Robert Letham et al], uses the phrase "in the space of six days" in his commentary on Genesis and this language was repeated by Ussher, another literalist, in his Irish Articles (so influential on the Westminster Assembly). It is this literalist language that is retained in the Confession.
(4) When challenged and charged with over-reading the phrase "in the space of six days" by those who believe the Confession to be non-committal or evasive for the sake of consensus, Mr. Hall then simply asks: "What evidence is there that there was a diversity of opinion on this issue that needed to find a consensus in a non-committal statement?"
(5) Then and only then does Mr. Hall go to the writings of the divines to see if there is indeed evidence for diversity. Any evidence of diversity at all.
(6) Having surveyed those writings he produces the following: [a] no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in the day-age view; no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in any form of a literary view; [c] no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in the Augustinian view; [d] every member who specifies his view specifies the traditional calendar day view (the so-called 24-hour view); [e] there is strong evidence to suggest that the phrase "in the space of six days" was specifically deployed to rebut and rule out the neo-Augustinian views represented in the thinking of contemporaries like Colet; [f] Such 'diversity' as can be found amongst the divines is all within the parameters of a literal view of the creation week.
In conclusion, Hall notes that there is no evidence whatsoever that any member of the Assembly held anything other than the traditional calendar day view. There is no evidence whatsoever of a diversity on this issue that needed a non-committal consensus statement in order to bring agreement within the Assembly. And therefore, when people claim that because the Confession was a consensus document it must be necessarily ambiguous on this matter, they do so without a single shred of historical evidence to support their entirely speculative, if not desperate, assertion.
This methodological issue is important because Dr. Fesko is not the only writer/speaker on this issue to charge Mr. Hall with bad logic. The very people who initially argued that the Divines were non-committal on this matter challenged Mr. Hall to study the original sources. They believed (without any evidence mind you) that an alleged diversity amongst the divines on this issue justified diversity amongst presbyterians today. Mr. Hall simply challenged their assumption and then produced the primary source material to back up his challenge.
Then they immediately started crying (1) that Mr. Hall was acting like a Rabbi and talmudically counting human opinions to establish spiritual truth rather than appealing to the Bible [a charge that so misses the point of this historical aspect of the creation debate that one wonders whether they are in the same discussion or not] or (2) that he hadn't found enough evidence of the calendar day view ["Oh," they said, "you've only proven that 20% of the Assembly held this view, you'll need to show explicitly that a majority held this view before we'll listen"] or (3) that Lightfoot held that the first day was 36 hours and hence the Assembly meant to be non-committal [anyone who wants to try to squeeze Lightfoot's first day literalism (which puts modern ICR-devotees in the shade with their mere insistence on the literal meaning of 'yom' and the significance of the use of the ordinal) into the mold of a day-age, literary, or Augustinian view, can be my guest] or (4), and I'll rejoin Dr. Fesko regarding this approach in my second major point, they say, "well, original intent doesn't matter after all [which is kind of like losing the game and then declaring thatyou weren't playing in the first place].
Now let's be clear. I believe that there should be a certain accepted diversity on the issue of the nature of the creation days within the Reformed tradition and within the PCA. So does Mr. Hall. I've worked hard as a conciliator on this issue at both the presbytery and General Assembly levels. But there is also another concern here. In our zeal to establish such legitimate diversity, do we make a wax nose out of the Confession in the process? Hasn't recent research forced us to admit that we've probably misunderstood the specific meaning of the Confession at this point? isn't the humble thing to do to say "we got this wrong, we'll allow a certain latitude on this, but we recognize that the original intent is clear and did not have in view such diversity."
The Importance of Original Intent
So, on to my next point. There seems to be an new industry today in Reformed circles. It's an industry committed to downplaying original intent whilst declaring Old School sympathies. And it's going to hurt us in the long run. Unfortunately, Dr. Fesko has devoted his considerable wisdom and learning to the work of this industry. He complains that, instead of appealing to original intent, "we must determine what animus imponentis ('the spirit of the entity imposing the oath') a church places upon the Westminster Standards." In other words, the most important thing in the ecclesial use of a confession is figuring out what the adopters meant to do when they adopted it. The problems with this approach begin, however, when the church itself has produced no publicly deliberated and received testimony as to what its animus imponentis was. Neither the OPC nor the PCA has done so, and that leaves us in a very vulnerable position when appealing to this principle. Hence, today, we hear intelligent men making goofy arguments (I promise I'm not making this up) like: "Well, when the OPC was formed it had dispensationalists in it, and nobody argued then that this was out of accord with the Confession, therefore dispensationalism should be confessionally acceptable in the OPC today." This sort of a subjective approach to determining the animus imponentis has Michael Foucault and Paul Ricoeur smiling.
Now, we do not deny the importance of a church's adopting act in ratifying the Confession, nor do we deny that this animus imponentis is (along with original intent) an important hermeneutical component to establishing the confessional obligations of churchmen, especially in connection with obscure or disputed points, but it is (1) ridiculous to pit the animus imponentis over against original intent as the norm of interpretation (unless we've bought into a postmodern view of truth-flux, won't we generally expect the two to agree, even if they are occasionally different?) and (2) insane to suggest that the animus imponentis can replace original intent altogether in our interpretation of the Confession.
When the Church of Scotland adopted the Westminster Confession it specified two areas in which it disagreed with the Confession: (1) presbyterian polity [the Presbyterians of Scotland went on record as saying that the Confession's failure to articulate a full-blown jure divino Presbyterianismwas not to be taken as an indication that the Church of Scotland was not fully committed to such] and (2) the civil magistrate's right to call an Assembly [the Confession had granted to the magistrate the right to call ecclesiastical assemblies, as it had the Westminister Assembly (!), but the Scots said this applied only to "unsettled kirks' -- in other words, it was okay for the English to do this, once, because they didn't have their act together, but this will never be allowed here in Scotland where we have an honest-to-goodness Reformed Kirk and nation].
So, in this case, via the Adopting Act, we can say definitively what the animus imponentis of the Scottish church was when it embraced the Confession. No member of that body ever need "take exception" to the specified clauses or chapters. Further, in these two instances, the animus imponentis is indeed contradictory of original intent. Indeed the animus imponentis stands the Confession on its head at these two points! As for the rest of it, the Scottish Kirk demanded that the "whole doctrine" of the Confession be embraced simpliciter.
But things are not so easy when it comes to the PCA and OPC. They have no adopting acts stating these sorts of corporate understandings and exceptions. Hence, determining what the Founding Fathers of both communions intended latitude on becomes notoriously difficult and often dependent upon anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, can one fairly appeal to evidence of accommodation or toleration of a view as evidence of the animus imponentis of the Church? It is doubtful.
The Problem of Latitude or Narrowing on Other Disputed Issues
Third, and finally, let me address Dr. Fesko's contention that Mr. Hall's approach to original intent opens us up to a range of problems in other disputed territories. He basically suggests that Hall's method either forces us to allow positions we wouldn't want to allow or forces us to make people take exceptions to positions we've previously allowed and want to continue to allow. First, let me remind the patient reader that Fesko's version of Hall's methodology is not, in fact, Hall's methodology. Second, let me be so bold as to assert that it is Fesko's approach to confessional subscription that actually opens the door to the problems. "How so," you say?
Well, Fesko charges that since the Confession is ambiguous or open on the questions of Amyraldianism and the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, but apparently clear and definite on that of Natural Theology, Lapsarianism, Theonomy. So, he argues, an original intent approach to interpreting the requirements of confessional adherence leaves us open, on the one hand, to four point Calvinists, and advocates of the passive-obedience-only-imputation view, while on the other hand forcing Van Tillians, Supralapsarians, and Theonomists to take an exception to the Confession! Now, dear reader, let me pause to say right now, this argument brings me no small amusement.
How shall we respond? First, by saying that Theonomists of the Bahnsenian stripe ought to have to take an exception to the Confession! They are clearly and irretrievably out of accord with the Confession's view of biblical law. So, when Fesko argues that 'if you use original intent as your subscriptional hermeneutic then Bahnsen-style theonomes will have to declare an exception,' my response is "Right. So? Next question." Now, of course, this argument of Fesko's is a sly ad hominem. He knows that many OPC theonomists are pushing for six day creation on the basis of strict subscription and he wants to back them down by showing that they themselves are not strict subscriptionists in terms of original intent. He's right. But the response he hopes for is for them to shy away from original intent appeals. Nevertheless, he's actually provided us here with a good argument for an objective original intent approach as opposed to a subjective animus imponentis approach to confessional hermeneutics.
Second, I'm inclined to agree with Fesko's assessment of the Confession's infralapsarianism, though the Confession's statements are light as a feather on this matter. Indeed, I'm publishing his outstanding dissertation on the subject! Pick up a copy from Reformed Academic Press later this Autumn (2001)! At any rate, there is far more evidence of a desire on the part of the Divines to achieve a consensus on this issue than that of creation. That fact alone helps to keep us careful in judging original intent, and thus behooves us to caution in placing too strenuous demands on subscribing supralapsarians.
Third, as a critic of certain aspects of Van Tillian epistemology, including its idealism and confused rendering of the historic Reformed orthodox doctrine of the noetic effects of sin, I was chuffed to hear Fesko's admission regarding the Confession's first chapter and its implications for a genuinely Reformed view of natural theology! He's right, of course. WCF 1.1, 1.6, 10.4, 20.4, 21.1 are not friendly to one of Van Til's greatest emphases. Nevertheless, even I would be hard-pressed to justify making a Van Tillian take an exception to the Confession on that ground. Fesko's argument does show that the widespread OPC practice of requiring assent to Van Tillianism of ordinands is actually unsupported by the Confession itself, and that R.C. Sproul has more in common with the Assembly of Divines on this point than does Cornelius Van Til! But he has not shown that the Confession's moderately Protestant Scholastic stance on natural revelation and theology is fundamentally at odds with Van Tillianism (much as I would love to declare it to be!).
Fourth, regarding Amyraldianism, the subjective animus imponentis approach suggested by Fesko will get the PCA and OPC into hot water much more quickly than will original intent. I'll explain that in a moment. But while one can certainly concur with Fesko that the Confession's statements on lapsarianism and even limited atonement are much more restrained and cautious than those of Dordt and Turretin, one cannot take the next step and declare that original intent gives us no aid here. The fact is that the Confession's moderate expressions of infralapsarianism in combination with its careful assertions of limited atonement and denials of universal redemption (as well as its failure to postulate a hypothetical universalism) constitute a tacit rejection of the Amyraldian scheme. Further, it is unlikely that Calamy and company really entertained a full-blown Amyraldianism - we might call them "semi-Amyraldians." The original intent thus does not imperil our current rejection of Amyraldians from ministerial communion in the PCA and OPC. One can argue that the Assembly wrote a document that, with regard to the decree and the nature of the atonement, was minimally offensive to Amyraldians and which allowed a minority of "semi-Amyraldians" to support it initially, but the document itself neither inculcates the Amyraldian system nor supplies the basic affirmations that would allow it to survive within the framework of a confessing church.
Fifth, Fesko's strongest argument regards the active and passive obedience debate. He suggests that the Confession allows for but does not explicitly demand the position that Christ's active and passive obedience are imputed to us. There is substance to this argument, but it needs more study before original intent is conceded or adduced here. Nevertheless, perhaps more than in other areas, we do see in this the marks of the consensual work of the Assembly. But the animus imponentis doesn't give you any help here either, because the OPC has never spelt out in an Adopting Act the requirement that the Confession be understood to teach the imputation of the whole obedience of Christ, active and passive. It may be the generally assumed practice of the Church (and that counts for something, I want to emphasize) but it does not constitute the animus imponentis in any kind of a formal sense.
Subjective Assertion of animus imponentis a Pandora's Box
Now, I have already charged that Fesko's approach actually causes problems in subscription, not Hall's. What do I mean? Well, let's take his one of his five examples and think about it in practice. It is almost certain that in both the PCA and OPC there were Amyraldians amongst the founding fathers. They may have been unwitting Amyraldians. They may not have even understood the terms. But it is almost certain that there were ministers and elders in good standing who would have articulated a perfectly good Amyraldian view given the chance. What then? Do we declare this the animus imponentis of the church and make it acceptable? That is what many (though not Dr. Fesko) would like to do. But when you possess no ecclesial declaration of animus imponentis then determining what the animus imponentis is becomes impossible. Fesko mocks Hall for counting the noses of the Assembly on the issue of the creation days, when this deed is far less challenging than determining the undeclared animus imponentis of hundreds of founding ministers and elders!
Indeed, there are two insuperable problems with Fesko's approach. First, it makes the meaning of the Confession a moving target by discounting the importance of the anchor of original intent. Second, it relies on a principle that twentieth century presbyterian communions like the PCA and OPC have less to go on than any of our presbyterian forbears. If you'd asked about the animus imponentis of the Free Church of 1843 or the Church of Scotland of 1647, you could have been handed a document that would sort that out. But the OPC and PCA adopting acts don't supply much if any help on the matters we've discussed above.
Hence, an appeal to an unspecified and unspecifiable animus imponentis (especially when combined with a discounting on original intent) makes the Confession into a wax nose to be molded by a fifty percent plus one majority of the court under the control of the spirit of the age. Bad idea. It opens up a Pandora's box of problems, and though it may seem to help in the relatively minor matter of the creation days, it hurts in precisely the areas of Dr. Fesko's own illustrations.
Recently, an able OPC minister and historical theologian, John V. Fesko has challenged David W. Hall's methodology for determining the original intent of the Westminster Assembly of Divines on the matter of the nature or length of the creation days, and even more significantly, has challenged the very status of original intent as a hermeneutical tool in establishing the meaning of a confessional document for the church. His concerns are at least twofold. First, he questions whether Hall's interpretive approach is a legitimate way of establishing the meaning of the Confession on the subject. Second, he is concerned that if Hall's "erroneous" approach is adopted, it could lead to a dangerous latitude or a restrictive narrowing on other issues.
The Question of Interpretive Method
The first thing that needs to be said in response is that Fesko misrepresents Hall's methodology. Because this is the case, his whole critique misses the mark. Fesko summarizes the methodology he attributes to Hall this way: "if a person can find a view other than six twenty-four hour literalism, then this would legitimize the permissibility of other views" [of the Confession's statement 'in the space of six days'].
Having spent hours in discussion with Mr. Hall on these matters, I can assure that he does not argue thusly: "In a comprehensive perusal of the extant writings of members of the Assembly, no divines have been found who held to a view other than 24-hour day creation days, therefore the Confession must mean to assert 24-hour creation days in its phrase 'in the space of six days' and therefore anyone differing with the Confession on this point ought to have to state his exception to it; conversely, if we were to find any member of the Assembly who held to another view, we would have to declare the phrase ambiguous or open on the matter of the creation days." That's not Mr. Hall's argument. In other words, David Hall doesn't think that the way you figure out what the Confession means is to go count up the varying individual members' opinions, gleaned from their published writings, and then impose the majority view upon any construction found in the text of the Confession or allow for diversity in subscription to the Confession if any diversity is discovered in the divines' private opinions.
Mr. Hall's logic, rather, goes like this.
(1) The Confession uses a phrase not found in Scripture in its chapter on creation. This phrase asserts that God created the world "in the space of six days." This phrase, in and of itself, seems to suggest that the Confession is specifying something positively about the nature and duration of the creation week.
(2) Though many respected late-nineteenth century interpreters of the Confession argue that the Confession is non-committal on the issue, at least one of their number (who does not embrace a '24-hour view') asserts that the Confession's original intent is that God created in six literal days, and no commentator on the Confession prior to 1850 suggests that there are various acceptable views of this clause.
(3) Lo and behold, it turns out that Calvin, who was a literalist on the nature of the days [pace Robert Letham et al], uses the phrase "in the space of six days" in his commentary on Genesis and this language was repeated by Ussher, another literalist, in his Irish Articles (so influential on the Westminster Assembly). It is this literalist language that is retained in the Confession.
(4) When challenged and charged with over-reading the phrase "in the space of six days" by those who believe the Confession to be non-committal or evasive for the sake of consensus, Mr. Hall then simply asks: "What evidence is there that there was a diversity of opinion on this issue that needed to find a consensus in a non-committal statement?"
(5) Then and only then does Mr. Hall go to the writings of the divines to see if there is indeed evidence for diversity. Any evidence of diversity at all.
(6) Having surveyed those writings he produces the following: [a] no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in the day-age view; no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in any form of a literary view; [c] no member of the Assembly articulated a belief in the Augustinian view; [d] every member who specifies his view specifies the traditional calendar day view (the so-called 24-hour view); [e] there is strong evidence to suggest that the phrase "in the space of six days" was specifically deployed to rebut and rule out the neo-Augustinian views represented in the thinking of contemporaries like Colet; [f] Such 'diversity' as can be found amongst the divines is all within the parameters of a literal view of the creation week.
In conclusion, Hall notes that there is no evidence whatsoever that any member of the Assembly held anything other than the traditional calendar day view. There is no evidence whatsoever of a diversity on this issue that needed a non-committal consensus statement in order to bring agreement within the Assembly. And therefore, when people claim that because the Confession was a consensus document it must be necessarily ambiguous on this matter, they do so without a single shred of historical evidence to support their entirely speculative, if not desperate, assertion.
This methodological issue is important because Dr. Fesko is not the only writer/speaker on this issue to charge Mr. Hall with bad logic. The very people who initially argued that the Divines were non-committal on this matter challenged Mr. Hall to study the original sources. They believed (without any evidence mind you) that an alleged diversity amongst the divines on this issue justified diversity amongst presbyterians today. Mr. Hall simply challenged their assumption and then produced the primary source material to back up his challenge.
Then they immediately started crying (1) that Mr. Hall was acting like a Rabbi and talmudically counting human opinions to establish spiritual truth rather than appealing to the Bible [a charge that so misses the point of this historical aspect of the creation debate that one wonders whether they are in the same discussion or not] or (2) that he hadn't found enough evidence of the calendar day view ["Oh," they said, "you've only proven that 20% of the Assembly held this view, you'll need to show explicitly that a majority held this view before we'll listen"] or (3) that Lightfoot held that the first day was 36 hours and hence the Assembly meant to be non-committal [anyone who wants to try to squeeze Lightfoot's first day literalism (which puts modern ICR-devotees in the shade with their mere insistence on the literal meaning of 'yom' and the significance of the use of the ordinal) into the mold of a day-age, literary, or Augustinian view, can be my guest] or (4), and I'll rejoin Dr. Fesko regarding this approach in my second major point, they say, "well, original intent doesn't matter after all [which is kind of like losing the game and then declaring thatyou weren't playing in the first place].
Now let's be clear. I believe that there should be a certain accepted diversity on the issue of the nature of the creation days within the Reformed tradition and within the PCA. So does Mr. Hall. I've worked hard as a conciliator on this issue at both the presbytery and General Assembly levels. But there is also another concern here. In our zeal to establish such legitimate diversity, do we make a wax nose out of the Confession in the process? Hasn't recent research forced us to admit that we've probably misunderstood the specific meaning of the Confession at this point? isn't the humble thing to do to say "we got this wrong, we'll allow a certain latitude on this, but we recognize that the original intent is clear and did not have in view such diversity."
The Importance of Original Intent
So, on to my next point. There seems to be an new industry today in Reformed circles. It's an industry committed to downplaying original intent whilst declaring Old School sympathies. And it's going to hurt us in the long run. Unfortunately, Dr. Fesko has devoted his considerable wisdom and learning to the work of this industry. He complains that, instead of appealing to original intent, "we must determine what animus imponentis ('the spirit of the entity imposing the oath') a church places upon the Westminster Standards." In other words, the most important thing in the ecclesial use of a confession is figuring out what the adopters meant to do when they adopted it. The problems with this approach begin, however, when the church itself has produced no publicly deliberated and received testimony as to what its animus imponentis was. Neither the OPC nor the PCA has done so, and that leaves us in a very vulnerable position when appealing to this principle. Hence, today, we hear intelligent men making goofy arguments (I promise I'm not making this up) like: "Well, when the OPC was formed it had dispensationalists in it, and nobody argued then that this was out of accord with the Confession, therefore dispensationalism should be confessionally acceptable in the OPC today." This sort of a subjective approach to determining the animus imponentis has Michael Foucault and Paul Ricoeur smiling.
Now, we do not deny the importance of a church's adopting act in ratifying the Confession, nor do we deny that this animus imponentis is (along with original intent) an important hermeneutical component to establishing the confessional obligations of churchmen, especially in connection with obscure or disputed points, but it is (1) ridiculous to pit the animus imponentis over against original intent as the norm of interpretation (unless we've bought into a postmodern view of truth-flux, won't we generally expect the two to agree, even if they are occasionally different?) and (2) insane to suggest that the animus imponentis can replace original intent altogether in our interpretation of the Confession.
When the Church of Scotland adopted the Westminster Confession it specified two areas in which it disagreed with the Confession: (1) presbyterian polity [the Presbyterians of Scotland went on record as saying that the Confession's failure to articulate a full-blown jure divino Presbyterianismwas not to be taken as an indication that the Church of Scotland was not fully committed to such] and (2) the civil magistrate's right to call an Assembly [the Confession had granted to the magistrate the right to call ecclesiastical assemblies, as it had the Westminister Assembly (!), but the Scots said this applied only to "unsettled kirks' -- in other words, it was okay for the English to do this, once, because they didn't have their act together, but this will never be allowed here in Scotland where we have an honest-to-goodness Reformed Kirk and nation].
So, in this case, via the Adopting Act, we can say definitively what the animus imponentis of the Scottish church was when it embraced the Confession. No member of that body ever need "take exception" to the specified clauses or chapters. Further, in these two instances, the animus imponentis is indeed contradictory of original intent. Indeed the animus imponentis stands the Confession on its head at these two points! As for the rest of it, the Scottish Kirk demanded that the "whole doctrine" of the Confession be embraced simpliciter.
But things are not so easy when it comes to the PCA and OPC. They have no adopting acts stating these sorts of corporate understandings and exceptions. Hence, determining what the Founding Fathers of both communions intended latitude on becomes notoriously difficult and often dependent upon anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, can one fairly appeal to evidence of accommodation or toleration of a view as evidence of the animus imponentis of the Church? It is doubtful.
The Problem of Latitude or Narrowing on Other Disputed Issues
Third, and finally, let me address Dr. Fesko's contention that Mr. Hall's approach to original intent opens us up to a range of problems in other disputed territories. He basically suggests that Hall's method either forces us to allow positions we wouldn't want to allow or forces us to make people take exceptions to positions we've previously allowed and want to continue to allow. First, let me remind the patient reader that Fesko's version of Hall's methodology is not, in fact, Hall's methodology. Second, let me be so bold as to assert that it is Fesko's approach to confessional subscription that actually opens the door to the problems. "How so," you say?
Well, Fesko charges that since the Confession is ambiguous or open on the questions of Amyraldianism and the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, but apparently clear and definite on that of Natural Theology, Lapsarianism, Theonomy. So, he argues, an original intent approach to interpreting the requirements of confessional adherence leaves us open, on the one hand, to four point Calvinists, and advocates of the passive-obedience-only-imputation view, while on the other hand forcing Van Tillians, Supralapsarians, and Theonomists to take an exception to the Confession! Now, dear reader, let me pause to say right now, this argument brings me no small amusement.
How shall we respond? First, by saying that Theonomists of the Bahnsenian stripe ought to have to take an exception to the Confession! They are clearly and irretrievably out of accord with the Confession's view of biblical law. So, when Fesko argues that 'if you use original intent as your subscriptional hermeneutic then Bahnsen-style theonomes will have to declare an exception,' my response is "Right. So? Next question." Now, of course, this argument of Fesko's is a sly ad hominem. He knows that many OPC theonomists are pushing for six day creation on the basis of strict subscription and he wants to back them down by showing that they themselves are not strict subscriptionists in terms of original intent. He's right. But the response he hopes for is for them to shy away from original intent appeals. Nevertheless, he's actually provided us here with a good argument for an objective original intent approach as opposed to a subjective animus imponentis approach to confessional hermeneutics.
Second, I'm inclined to agree with Fesko's assessment of the Confession's infralapsarianism, though the Confession's statements are light as a feather on this matter. Indeed, I'm publishing his outstanding dissertation on the subject! Pick up a copy from Reformed Academic Press later this Autumn (2001)! At any rate, there is far more evidence of a desire on the part of the Divines to achieve a consensus on this issue than that of creation. That fact alone helps to keep us careful in judging original intent, and thus behooves us to caution in placing too strenuous demands on subscribing supralapsarians.
Third, as a critic of certain aspects of Van Tillian epistemology, including its idealism and confused rendering of the historic Reformed orthodox doctrine of the noetic effects of sin, I was chuffed to hear Fesko's admission regarding the Confession's first chapter and its implications for a genuinely Reformed view of natural theology! He's right, of course. WCF 1.1, 1.6, 10.4, 20.4, 21.1 are not friendly to one of Van Til's greatest emphases. Nevertheless, even I would be hard-pressed to justify making a Van Tillian take an exception to the Confession on that ground. Fesko's argument does show that the widespread OPC practice of requiring assent to Van Tillianism of ordinands is actually unsupported by the Confession itself, and that R.C. Sproul has more in common with the Assembly of Divines on this point than does Cornelius Van Til! But he has not shown that the Confession's moderately Protestant Scholastic stance on natural revelation and theology is fundamentally at odds with Van Tillianism (much as I would love to declare it to be!).
Fourth, regarding Amyraldianism, the subjective animus imponentis approach suggested by Fesko will get the PCA and OPC into hot water much more quickly than will original intent. I'll explain that in a moment. But while one can certainly concur with Fesko that the Confession's statements on lapsarianism and even limited atonement are much more restrained and cautious than those of Dordt and Turretin, one cannot take the next step and declare that original intent gives us no aid here. The fact is that the Confession's moderate expressions of infralapsarianism in combination with its careful assertions of limited atonement and denials of universal redemption (as well as its failure to postulate a hypothetical universalism) constitute a tacit rejection of the Amyraldian scheme. Further, it is unlikely that Calamy and company really entertained a full-blown Amyraldianism - we might call them "semi-Amyraldians." The original intent thus does not imperil our current rejection of Amyraldians from ministerial communion in the PCA and OPC. One can argue that the Assembly wrote a document that, with regard to the decree and the nature of the atonement, was minimally offensive to Amyraldians and which allowed a minority of "semi-Amyraldians" to support it initially, but the document itself neither inculcates the Amyraldian system nor supplies the basic affirmations that would allow it to survive within the framework of a confessing church.
Fifth, Fesko's strongest argument regards the active and passive obedience debate. He suggests that the Confession allows for but does not explicitly demand the position that Christ's active and passive obedience are imputed to us. There is substance to this argument, but it needs more study before original intent is conceded or adduced here. Nevertheless, perhaps more than in other areas, we do see in this the marks of the consensual work of the Assembly. But the animus imponentis doesn't give you any help here either, because the OPC has never spelt out in an Adopting Act the requirement that the Confession be understood to teach the imputation of the whole obedience of Christ, active and passive. It may be the generally assumed practice of the Church (and that counts for something, I want to emphasize) but it does not constitute the animus imponentis in any kind of a formal sense.
Subjective Assertion of animus imponentis a Pandora's Box
Now, I have already charged that Fesko's approach actually causes problems in subscription, not Hall's. What do I mean? Well, let's take his one of his five examples and think about it in practice. It is almost certain that in both the PCA and OPC there were Amyraldians amongst the founding fathers. They may have been unwitting Amyraldians. They may not have even understood the terms. But it is almost certain that there were ministers and elders in good standing who would have articulated a perfectly good Amyraldian view given the chance. What then? Do we declare this the animus imponentis of the church and make it acceptable? That is what many (though not Dr. Fesko) would like to do. But when you possess no ecclesial declaration of animus imponentis then determining what the animus imponentis is becomes impossible. Fesko mocks Hall for counting the noses of the Assembly on the issue of the creation days, when this deed is far less challenging than determining the undeclared animus imponentis of hundreds of founding ministers and elders!
Indeed, there are two insuperable problems with Fesko's approach. First, it makes the meaning of the Confession a moving target by discounting the importance of the anchor of original intent. Second, it relies on a principle that twentieth century presbyterian communions like the PCA and OPC have less to go on than any of our presbyterian forbears. If you'd asked about the animus imponentis of the Free Church of 1843 or the Church of Scotland of 1647, you could have been handed a document that would sort that out. But the OPC and PCA adopting acts don't supply much if any help on the matters we've discussed above.
Hence, an appeal to an unspecified and unspecifiable animus imponentis (especially when combined with a discounting on original intent) makes the Confession into a wax nose to be molded by a fifty percent plus one majority of the court under the control of the spirit of the age. Bad idea. It opens up a Pandora's box of problems, and though it may seem to help in the relatively minor matter of the creation days, it hurts in precisely the areas of Dr. Fesko's own illustrations.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
This is what my concern is. Redefining and disregarding the Confession essentially overrides the Confession so that it becomes meaningless as a guide. All that determines orthodoxy is a majority vote in presbytery or GA. It won't be long before a 4-pointer is ordained simply because he is so good in every other area and is in the "spirit" of Westminster.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Wayne...
I couldn't help but notice a theme reoccurring...that of the interpretation of the confession. What is startling about it is that the Bible is not used, or perhaps, he doesn't talk about the Scriptures in the parts you've included.
I think the divines were well aware that the confession could become a divisive issue, which is why they remind us from the very beginning that the Scriptures are the final judge. I'm not suggesting that he's forgotten this. But, I do think that he isn't necessarily erring on the side of caution.
This is a prime example of tightrope walking. We have the propensity to crawl into a subject and milk it for all its worth. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it can and probably does lead to the divisions among us.
Having said that, I see no reason for "pet theologies". If someone wants to believe something contrary to the confession because he has a pet theory on what is correct, let him keep it to himself, and teach what the confession teaches. Why must ministers and elders bend the clear meaning of the confession to their own beliefs? Is it worth it? Are those hills to die on? I say that strict subscription does not necessarily mean that one must hold dearly to the minute points. But he must submit himself to his fellow ministers and elders. In essence he must believe as they believe, as well as believe what he believes. How may a man divide himself thus? Easy. Start with what the confession does say, not what it doesn't. In this way, I agree with Duncan that finding out what the men actually believed does not accomplish a whole lot. What did they say, not what did they leave out.
But will that lead to a minister teaching what he does not believe?
Let's say you have a minister who holds to the day-age view. Does he need to teach that when he goes through Genesis? I say no. Is he harming his conscience? No. He is teaching the doctrine of creation that he believes. He does believe God created in 6 days, he just has a problem with how long the days were. Why is that necessary for his teaching and his conscience? If asked, he should present the 6-24 interpretation, while he could also postulate his own opinion. Opinions aren't wrong in some places. In the pulpit, he had better preach the text like it appears and not eisogete his own pet theory.
This is subscriptionism in my view. We take what has been said and we agree with it, no stipulations whatsoever. We may believe further, we may not understand fully, but in any case, we oath that we will teach the symbols that have been handed down to us.
It sounds simple, but every man has an axe to grind. But why feed the flock of God with food of one's own creation? Why use one's own particular revision or addition? Truly, we can't very well keep this out of our sermons, but where we know we differ, we should shut up. Where we have difficulty with the confession, we should pray that God give us understanding, instead of lord it over those who don't believe as we do.
Subscription is easy where humilty is. Subscription is chafing and irritating where pride gets in the way.
Therefore, in my view we should view the confession as a perimeter in which we stay square in the middle. If we go near the edges, we better expect bad things to happen. If we all did this, if we all submitted to one another, this "line-drawing" in the sand of theology would happen less and less, and we would be blessed with more and more unity.
In Christ,
KC
I couldn't help but notice a theme reoccurring...that of the interpretation of the confession. What is startling about it is that the Bible is not used, or perhaps, he doesn't talk about the Scriptures in the parts you've included.
I think the divines were well aware that the confession could become a divisive issue, which is why they remind us from the very beginning that the Scriptures are the final judge. I'm not suggesting that he's forgotten this. But, I do think that he isn't necessarily erring on the side of caution.
This is a prime example of tightrope walking. We have the propensity to crawl into a subject and milk it for all its worth. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it can and probably does lead to the divisions among us.
Having said that, I see no reason for "pet theologies". If someone wants to believe something contrary to the confession because he has a pet theory on what is correct, let him keep it to himself, and teach what the confession teaches. Why must ministers and elders bend the clear meaning of the confession to their own beliefs? Is it worth it? Are those hills to die on? I say that strict subscription does not necessarily mean that one must hold dearly to the minute points. But he must submit himself to his fellow ministers and elders. In essence he must believe as they believe, as well as believe what he believes. How may a man divide himself thus? Easy. Start with what the confession does say, not what it doesn't. In this way, I agree with Duncan that finding out what the men actually believed does not accomplish a whole lot. What did they say, not what did they leave out.
But will that lead to a minister teaching what he does not believe?
Let's say you have a minister who holds to the day-age view. Does he need to teach that when he goes through Genesis? I say no. Is he harming his conscience? No. He is teaching the doctrine of creation that he believes. He does believe God created in 6 days, he just has a problem with how long the days were. Why is that necessary for his teaching and his conscience? If asked, he should present the 6-24 interpretation, while he could also postulate his own opinion. Opinions aren't wrong in some places. In the pulpit, he had better preach the text like it appears and not eisogete his own pet theory.
This is subscriptionism in my view. We take what has been said and we agree with it, no stipulations whatsoever. We may believe further, we may not understand fully, but in any case, we oath that we will teach the symbols that have been handed down to us.
It sounds simple, but every man has an axe to grind. But why feed the flock of God with food of one's own creation? Why use one's own particular revision or addition? Truly, we can't very well keep this out of our sermons, but where we know we differ, we should shut up. Where we have difficulty with the confession, we should pray that God give us understanding, instead of lord it over those who don't believe as we do.
Subscription is easy where humilty is. Subscription is chafing and irritating where pride gets in the way.
Therefore, in my view we should view the confession as a perimeter in which we stay square in the middle. If we go near the edges, we better expect bad things to happen. If we all did this, if we all submitted to one another, this "line-drawing" in the sand of theology would happen less and less, and we would be blessed with more and more unity.
In Christ,
KC
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
One of the problems I see with a perimeter view is where do they begin and where do they end. I agree that we should stay right down the middle, but unfortunately that is happening less and less.
In my humble opinion, everyone should start with the plain text of the Standards, ie; it means what it says! No more and no less. When the Standards are taken as a whole system rather than a disjointed collection of various doctrines, the meaning is quite clear.
One of the problems I see with original intent is what is happening today and that is original intent "BINGO". Just find a Puritan (any Puritan) that was associated with the Westminster Assembly (or knew someone at the Assembly, or should have been at the Assembly!), quote them and then you have the "original intent" of the Assembly. Of course at the other end you have the Church creating more confusion with papers like they produced on Creation that stretches the Standards all out of wack.
But regarding original intent, officers are not required to subscribe to the Minutes of the Assembly or their favorite commentary of the Standards. I think any confession, whether the Standards or 3 Forms of Unity, has to be taken first and foremost at face value. They mean what they mean. This isn't rocket science! And if you disagree with the Confession, well no one is holding a gun at your head to become an officer of the Church. Go some place where your views and convictions are accepted. A prime example is what has happened to RC Jr. He has strong convictions about peado communion. So strong that it caused him to violate his ordination vows. I thinks this happens more often than not when exceptions are allowed. If you really believe Scripture is saying X and the Standards say Y, rather than stand in that pulpit and speak on behalf of God Almighty what the standards teach, when you know its wrong, you need to move along and find find some place where they will accept your view.
So I guess when it comes down to it, I wouldn't view the standards as walking a tightrope but maybe more like walking a plank (a very limited space to maneuver in).
In my humble opinion, everyone should start with the plain text of the Standards, ie; it means what it says! No more and no less. When the Standards are taken as a whole system rather than a disjointed collection of various doctrines, the meaning is quite clear.
One of the problems I see with original intent is what is happening today and that is original intent "BINGO". Just find a Puritan (any Puritan) that was associated with the Westminster Assembly (or knew someone at the Assembly, or should have been at the Assembly!), quote them and then you have the "original intent" of the Assembly. Of course at the other end you have the Church creating more confusion with papers like they produced on Creation that stretches the Standards all out of wack.
But regarding original intent, officers are not required to subscribe to the Minutes of the Assembly or their favorite commentary of the Standards. I think any confession, whether the Standards or 3 Forms of Unity, has to be taken first and foremost at face value. They mean what they mean. This isn't rocket science! And if you disagree with the Confession, well no one is holding a gun at your head to become an officer of the Church. Go some place where your views and convictions are accepted. A prime example is what has happened to RC Jr. He has strong convictions about peado communion. So strong that it caused him to violate his ordination vows. I thinks this happens more often than not when exceptions are allowed. If you really believe Scripture is saying X and the Standards say Y, rather than stand in that pulpit and speak on behalf of God Almighty what the standards teach, when you know its wrong, you need to move along and find find some place where they will accept your view.
So I guess when it comes down to it, I wouldn't view the standards as walking a tightrope but maybe more like walking a plank (a very limited space to maneuver in).
cultureshock
Puritan Board Freshman
I am at the stage of questioning, and trying to understand issues related to church confession, and what implications it will have for subscription. I am not settled, but I am looking to be persuaded. So, here's my question: Is it perhaps dangerous to limit the authorial intent of the confessions (or any document) to what the authors might have reasonably believed?
For example, when the creation days issue comes up, it is often argued that the "framework" view was not reasonably within the assembly's horizon of understanding, and thus, it could not be allowed for by authorial intent. In other words, the assembly had never heard of the "framework" view, so it is definitely not accomodated by the language of WCF. Now, I am not settled either for against the framework position yet--I have not even read the position yet. So, without getting into the merits and demerits of that position, is it possible that a confession written before a particular position came out can still allow for that position?
In fact, we see this all the time in the way we apply Scripture to ethical issues today: When Paul wrote Ephesians 4:28, "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need," I'm guessing he had no idea what credit card fraud is. That concept did not lie within his conceptual understanding. Yet, somehow, we see fit to apply this command against stealing to credit card fraud. Credit card fraud was not in the original human author's horizon, yet we believe that we can rightly apply it.
So, my question is, why can we do this in the case of Scripture, but not with the confessions? Isn't it possible that some views, of which the Westminster Assembly had no knowledge, could still be consistent with and even allowed by the confession? Is there a significant difference between these two examples that I am missing?
Again, I only use "frameworK" theory as an example, perhaps not the best example due to other controversies. If I came up with a new eschatological position tomorrow, could I still be considered to subscribe to the confession without being accused of "revision"?
My point is that authorial intent (of any document) can possess a wide variety of significances that were unthought of by the author himself. And, if this is the case, then perhaps this militates against viewing the confessions as a "tightrope."
Brian
[Edited on 2-9-2006 by cultureshock]
For example, when the creation days issue comes up, it is often argued that the "framework" view was not reasonably within the assembly's horizon of understanding, and thus, it could not be allowed for by authorial intent. In other words, the assembly had never heard of the "framework" view, so it is definitely not accomodated by the language of WCF. Now, I am not settled either for against the framework position yet--I have not even read the position yet. So, without getting into the merits and demerits of that position, is it possible that a confession written before a particular position came out can still allow for that position?
In fact, we see this all the time in the way we apply Scripture to ethical issues today: When Paul wrote Ephesians 4:28, "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need," I'm guessing he had no idea what credit card fraud is. That concept did not lie within his conceptual understanding. Yet, somehow, we see fit to apply this command against stealing to credit card fraud. Credit card fraud was not in the original human author's horizon, yet we believe that we can rightly apply it.
So, my question is, why can we do this in the case of Scripture, but not with the confessions? Isn't it possible that some views, of which the Westminster Assembly had no knowledge, could still be consistent with and even allowed by the confession? Is there a significant difference between these two examples that I am missing?
Again, I only use "frameworK" theory as an example, perhaps not the best example due to other controversies. If I came up with a new eschatological position tomorrow, could I still be considered to subscribe to the confession without being accused of "revision"?
My point is that authorial intent (of any document) can possess a wide variety of significances that were unthought of by the author himself. And, if this is the case, then perhaps this militates against viewing the confessions as a "tightrope."
Brian
[Edited on 2-9-2006 by cultureshock]
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
