I am kind of shocked at this John Frame comment on the WCF....

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Where in DKG do you draw the evidence to support this conclusion and the subsequent indictment of Frame as a proponent of relativism?

See pp. 302-318. Having claimed that the situational perspective is as determinative as the normative perspective, he applies Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary theory to theological progression and denies the traditional concept of progress by accumulation. He speaks of theological progress as contextualising the message, and specifically maintains "no definitive criteria for orthodoxy can be laid down once and for all. If such criteria were definitive, then they would be on a par with Scripture. Rather, criteria of this sort are always applications of Scripture to various situations; and situations change" (p. 305). He thus denies a definitive, unchanging orthodoxy in historical statements of truth, or, to use the technical term, the norma normata.

Excellent! I reviewed the materials and now stand corrected.

 

[DonP]

Excellent! I reviewed the materials and now stand corrected.

Wow a changeable man. Praise God. A good example for all of us.

Thanks!

What year were those chapters added to the Confession and why did they feel the need?
Any good resource or minutes of GA you can point me to.

Personally I like the idea of adding something on the Gospel but if they had accepted the Sum of Saving Knowledge the may not have felt a need to.
But there has been so much controversy on the free offer and the modern decisional regeneration if this was clearly stated and refuted may have been more helpful.

 

[Prufrock]

E.g. it's not useful in this discussion to defend the confession's inclusiveness by its binding together of you and Rich. How about you and me?

My apologies for being too off-topic. I simply wanted to display a token of "well-said" to something Rich said.

 

[Marrow Man]

Don, my understanding is that those chapters were originally added to the Standards of the northern Presbyterian church around the turn of the 20th century as a response to the objections of the (Arminian) Cumberland Presbyterians (read between the lines: in order to water down the Calvinism in the WCF). The southern Presbyterians adopted the chapters around 1950, and true to form, the ARP followed their big brother (the PCUS) and added the chapters about 5 years later.

Mind you, this is all from memory. The book I need that chronicles this is not with my right now. I can check at home (on the years) and update later. If someone else wants to fill in the pieces or correct my recollection, please do so.

 

[DonP]

Don, my understanding is that those chapters were originally added to the Standards of the northern Presbyterian church around the turn of the 20th century as a response to the objections of the (Arminian) Cumberland Presbyterians (read between the lines: in order to water down the Calvinism in the WCF). The southern Presbyterians adopted the chapters around 1950, and true to form, the ARP followed their big brother (the PCUS) and added the chapters about 5 years later.

Mind you, this is all from memory. The book I need that chronicles this is not with my right now. I can check at home (on the years) and update later. If someone else wants to fill in the pieces or correct my recollection, please do so.

No wonder they didn't make the Gospel chapter better then.

I was thinking it was a new side old side thing but I didn't remember Cumberland pres.
So why did ARP adopt it? And why not repeal it and go back ?

 

[Marrow Man]

Ah, just remembered that I included those alterations of the WCF elsewhere. Here is a portion of a paragraph I wrote with the appropriate data:

The Northern branch of the Presbyterian Church added two chapters
to the WCF in 1903, and the Southern church did likewise in 1942.
The two chapters were entitled “Of the Holy Spirit” and “Of the
Gospel of the Love of God and Missions,” since it was felt the WCF
lacked “a sufficiently full doctrine of the Holy Spirit” and hampered
men by “rigid predestination limits.” This attitude was highlighted
by the fact that the Northern church also added in 1903 two
declaratory statements, the first of which dealt directly with
misgivings on the subject of predestination: “Contrary to the
implication that Christ had died only for some, and that others were
foreordained to damnation, the Declaratory Statement made clear
that Christ’s sacrifice for sin was sufficient for all and offered to
all.” The second declaration, which objected to the WCF’s
statement that elect infants dying in infancy are saved, added that
all infants dying in infancy are saved. In addition to these changes,
in the 1950’s both the Northern and Southern Presbyterian Churches
amended the WCF’s prohibition on divorce and remarriage (except in
cases of adultery or desertion), preferring to allow greater flexibility
in this area.

The sources for these are Office of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Book of Confessions: Study Edition (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 1996), p. 170, and Edward A. Dowey, Jr., A Commentary on the Confession of 1967 and an Introduction to “The Book of Confessions” (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 230, 234.

I believe the ARP adopted the chapters around 1950. Why not repeal them? Good question (one that was actually posed on the floor of Synod a few years ago by Dr. Bill Evans). Here's the problem with this sort of thing: once the genie gets out of the bottle, it's hard to put him back in again. Once amendments, chapters, etc. are added, it's hard to get them taken out. Very hard. Very very hard.

 

[Archlute]

Had you been at the examination of Leithart's orthodoxy that was held at the Oct. 2008 meeting of our presbytery, and heard the emphasis that was placed upon Frame's view of the confessions as a way by which to completely negate the authority of our standards as a means of evaluating a minister's theology, you would (or should) have been disheartened.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I really like Frame, always have.

Just read this:

Response to Jeremy Jones, Renewing Theology



3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers.

If the WCF was written today I believe there might be some things added like maybe creation vs evolution, and a rejection of the low self esteem victim psychology- instead of sin- behind emotional problems. But I thought we all agreed it was a real good basic summary of the main scriptural teachings. Not infallible canon, but excellent. I thought you had to take a vow to that effect to be ordained. I am puzzled by what he means about more theological reflection exactly. I'm still holding to the golden age myself.

Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.

I see no problem with Frame's questions. R. Scott Clark, an ardent defender of confessions, thinks it's time for a new Reformed confession. Writes Clark,

The relative reluctance of modern Reformed folk to confess the faith in their own words suggests a certain weakness in the post-Westminster understanding of the importance and necessity of confession.
​

Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,

When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, and in accordance with the additional light of Scripture which the Holy Spirit might be pleased to give the church. I believe that the time has come for us to do something along this line.
​

So Frame's point is valid. Of course, those who don't like some of Frame's theology will attribute an ill design to his motives. Frame may be against a kind of static confessionalism, but he's not opposed to orthodoxy or confessionalism per se.

 

[VictorBravo]

MODERATION

The thread has been edited to remove allegations of motive on the part of Frame or others. It is open for discussion on the merits, but let us refrain from discussing the inner motives (unless they are admitted) of anyone here. That is something we can't know and something that is off limits on the board.

 

[lynnie]

Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,
When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise,

That is an interesting point. The confessions were written in a time when the church primarily seemed to battle the RCC and Arminians. I wonder if they were written today if many things would be added to address the prosperity doctrine greed, Darwin and evolution, self esteem psychobabble, Scofield dispensationalism, etc.

Nothing about God would be changed, or about salvation or righteousness or any eternal unchanging truth. But might not a modern confession have a few extras about some modern problems?

 

[DonP]

Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,
When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise,

That is an interesting point. The confessions were written in a time when the church primarily seemed to battle the RCC and Arminians. I wonder if they were written today if many things would be added to address the prosperity doctrine greed, Darwin and evolution, self esteem psychobabble, Scofield dispensationalism, etc.

Nothing about God would be changed, or about salvation or righteousness or any eternal unchanging truth. But might not a modern confession have a few extras about some modern problems?

Only if they confronted essential doctrines, like works salvation of Catholicism or Arminianism.

So probably not prosperity error, but possibly FV. But I think they are extremely clear against FV already.

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 03:37:04 EST-----

MODERATION

The thread has been edited to remove allegations of motive on the part of Frame or others. It is open for discussion on the merits, but let us refrain from discussing the inner motives (unless they are admitted) of anyone here. That is something we can't know and something that is off limits on the board.

If one speaks in a way clearly designed to bring question upon the truth, and they hold to those same deviant beliefs themselves, as evidenced in their own writing or speaking, then can't one say:

He is asking questions because he can't say it is wrong, but he wants to cause others to doubt the credibility of the Confession and be open to change it or disregard it in practice, or show leniency with dissidents; just as the Mainstream Presbyterian church did long ago.
?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I think the best description I ever heard of a Confession was that it is like a fence line. If you're inside the fence then you're in but if you're outside the fence line then you're out. Some fence lines are larger than others. The Apostle's Creed is a bigger fence than the Nicence which is bigger than the Chalcedon. Every time the Church confessed was to draw a line less to keep people in than to keep folks out.

Sectarianism? You ain't seen nothing until every man creates his own Confession and the fence line for orthodoxy is a dot.

This is an excellent point, Rich.

 

[OPC'n]

I guess I should blush....but I've never heard of the guy.

 

[Marrow Man]

I guess I should blush....but I've never heard of the guy.

Blush indeed!

I was once considering writing a thesis on Frame's view of Scripture in relation to the knowledge of God; now I feel like I've just dodged a bullet.

Or maybe like the dude wearing that bulletproof vest on thread that got yanked!

 

[pepper]

While I am not Presbyterian, but Baptist. I just have a question. If The WCF is completely orthodox, then where does the London Confession of 1689 stand? There are major differences concerning government, baptism, etc.?

 

[KMK]

While I am not Presbyterian, but Baptist. I just have a question. If The WCF is completely orthodox, then where does the London Confession of 1689 stand? There are major differences concerning government, baptism, etc.?

This question is in danger of taking this thread way off course.

I think what pepper is asking is this: If the confession can be rewritten by Baptists and remain orthodox (which the PB maintains) why can't Frame rewrite the WCF and remain orthodox?

Please do not turn this thread into a brawl over the orthodoxy of the LBC since it is accepted as orthodox here on PB.

 

[MW]

R. Scott Clark, an ardent defender of confessions, thinks it's time for a new Reformed confession. Writes Clark,

The relative reluctance of modern Reformed folk to confess the faith in their own words suggests a certain weakness in the post-Westminster understanding of the importance and necessity of confession.
​

"Reluctance" does not correctly describe the attitude. "Restraint" is more appropriate. Confessional folk are open to confess the faith in their own words, but the circumstances are not such that they feel this can be done with the same integrity and profitability as characterised the past. It must be remembered that the golden era of reformed confessionalism enjoyed certain conditions which are not apparent today. The two great reformed traditions -- the Scotch and the Dutch -- received the protective care of the higher powers who understood at least to some extent that they were keepers of both tables of the law. Not only is that not a reality today but the kind of people urging confessionalism disparage the very thought of it. Then there is the associated problem of unity. Because there are no civil sanctions against schism the visible church is divided into numerous sections, so that one is left wondering what a modern confession would look like. Even those sections holding to the Westminster Confession cannot agree on its interpretation and application. The Westminster Confession is often criticised because it contains too much detail and is seen as rather restrictive; to keep adding new articles of faith will only make it more restrictive and create a greater divide between those churches which maintain essentially the same commitment.

Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,

When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, and in accordance with the additional light of Scripture which the Holy Spirit might be pleased to give the church. I believe that the time has come for us to do something along this line.
​

Following the previous line of thought relative to unity, surely the illumination of the Spirit is such that it serves for the benefit of the whole body of Christ. It is true that heresies are to be opposed, but the reality is that confessional revision in the latter 19th and throughout the 20th century has led to the toleration of heresy and the fracture of the visible church. Can that truly be called "additional light of Scripture" which fractures the body of Christ and weakens its testimony?

Brethren, let's be sober-minded about this subject. When the visible church reforms according to the Word of God, the natural outflow will be the revitalising of her confessional stance. But the order itself is important. First there must be reformation; then, and not until then, can we hope for the revival of reformed confessionalism.

 

[jandrusk]

I'm not an expert on Frame like other have stated on this thread, but I think the fact that he's asking the question raises the following points in my mind:
1. That we should see the differences in the denominations is an ambiguous term without qualifying what differences he is talking about.
2. As others have said he is not specific as to what specific points in the WCF he has contention with.
3. I think his statement of focusing on all of the positives and ignoring the negatives is just opening the door to heretics to walk in and corrupt the faithful. I guess the Council Dort was not a good thing?
4. His statement of it being a good thing to be a confessional church? I could speak from recent experience on this one. I just became reformed about a little less than 2 years ago and I came from a non-denominational church that was not confessional. That was not good, because people manipulated theology as it suited them and the pastor and elders couldn't say that much to people, due to the lack of an established confession or creed. I'm now part of the OPC and the checks and balances provided by WCF keeps heretics in check and ensures everyone is on the same page.

In summary I think Frame is proposing what Machen was dismissed for; Liberalism creeping its ugly head into the reformed church and seeking to molest Christ's precious lambs.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think Michael Horton wrote a masterful article in the Sept/Oct 2008 of Modern Reformation entitle "Whose Orthodoxy: How to Define It and Why It's So Important"(Modern Reformation - Articles) You'll need to register to read it in full.

Today, orthodoxy is often confused with a cultural and even political conservatism. This has not always been so (and still is not in other parts of the world). Frequently, America's culture wars are identified by sociologists in terms of "orthodox" versus "progressive," which is to define orthodoxy again in terms other than Christian doctrine.

Setting its sights on the plotline of God's mighty acts in history "for us and for our salvation," orthodoxy defines faithfulness by how well we not only conserve this faith but by how well we correct our faith and practice to conform to its rule. That's why orthodoxy has given rise as often to reformations as to conservations. It is a living faith-in fact, the only part of what calls itself Christianity that is actually alive. From this Archimedean point, William Wilberforce was able to stand almost alone in bringing down the British slave trade. Christian orthodoxy has no personal stake in progressivism or conservatism; its instincts are evangelical in the deepest sense: oriented to the gospel that creates and sustains the church in all times and places.

Heterodoxy is easy; orthodoxy is the challenge. Orthodoxy forces us to set sail for ever new and distant harbors, beyond the comfort of our cherished assumptions and practices. It is orthodoxy that is adventuresome, refusing to allow us to stew in our own juices. We are not allowed to reduce our horizon to the dimensions of our own experience in our own time and place but must become "catholic" creatures: opened up to the church in all times and places.

Gotta love modern Confessions that deal with contemporary issues. Want a response to the evils of Hollywood or intemperance? The Southern Baptist Convention is your solution. Not only has it confessed that we ought to boycott Disney but has confessed that Christians ought to foreswear alchohol and employment in any place that serves it. Of course, the only problem is that it has confused American conservatism and revivalism with historic orthodoxy.

One of the problems with modern "confessional" responses to modern problems is that the modern confessors suffer from the same disease of modernism. I had taken my own journey before reading Mike Horton's article but, like so many things Mike writes, he put words to something and I'm like: "Yeah, that's what I wanted to say." So many times, people get to the boundary of a Confession, want to wander beyond just to speculate and let everyone know that their might be grass on the other side of that fence. Somebody challenges them and they say: "Hey man, SEMPER REFORMANDA!!"

For many, Semper Reformanda means this: everything is up for grabs. We might still have to tear up the entire foundation of everything the Church stands for and start from fresh and I, even I, might be the one that's going to push the Church in that direction.

Mike reminds us that "Always Reforming" isn't about us having a revolutionary attitude when we go to Church. We are wrong to assume that we are so brilliant to overthrow orthodox confession. Our attitude ought to be that Christian orthodoxy would be constantly TRANSFORMING US. We are the subjects that are in need of reformation constantly.

The right attitude is to approach orthodoxy in the hope that it is going to re-shape our cultural assumptions rather than allowing our cultural assumptions to re-shape orthodoxy. What bothers me about calls for new Confessions is not that people that typically call for them have demonstrated that they are temperate about the current Confessions we possess but that they're calling for them because they are inconvenient to the pastures they want to explore.

 

[DonP]

All ministers and elders should read the history of the PRes church in the US and see that every time they allow the weaker men in it goes downhill and splits result.
This is a good history as are The Presbyterian Conflict - Rian and
Fighting the Good Fight - Hart and Muether, these are excellent !!

You just can't loosen to accommodate them hoping they will get better, you wait till they do.

Things never change.

The History Behind the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod
by George P. Hutchinson/B]
The Old School was charged with being exclusive and sectarian.61

The latter, on the other hand, opposed the existence and operation within the Church of educational and missionary societies not under any ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This oppo- sition was based on at least two practical considerations. First, the independent agency may become unsound; and second, the control of the work of the Church tends to be in the hands of a few men rather than in the hands of the Church as a whole.62 The opposition also stemmed from an appeal to distinctive Presbyterian principles. Some Old School men condemned independent agencies as, in the na- ture of the case, unpresbyterian. Others like Charles Hodge argued that, while not wrong in themselves and often helpful, such agencies are not conducive to the distinctive interests of the Presbyterian Church, which is obliged to educate her own ministers and oversee their work. ‗People may cry out against all this as high churchism, but it is Presbyterianism.‘6

 

[Hebrew Student]

Hey Everyone!

I think Frame has a point, but we must be careful.

Yes, I think that there is a danger in progressivism in that teachings with deep Biblical roots need to be held to strongly. However, I also think that there are things that people hold to on the basis of one interpretation of one text of scripture.

For example, there are many times when the catechisms will cite one verse in defense of what they are saying. I don't think it is inconceivable that one verse could possibly be misinterpreted. What happens if someone, upon further study, we find out that that one verse has been absolutely misinterpreted by the confession?

God Bless,
Adam

 

[DonP]

For example, there are many times when the catechisms will cite one verse in defense of what they are saying. I don't think it is inconceivable that one verse could possibly be misinterpreted. What happens if someone, upon further study, we find out that that one verse has been absolutely misinterpreted by the confession?

God Bless,
Adam

When that happens let me know and we will talk about changing the Confession then.

 

[Marrow Man]

For example, there are many times when the catechisms will cite one verse in defense of what they are saying. I don't think it is inconceivable that one verse could possibly be misinterpreted. What happens if someone, upon further study, we find out that that one verse has been absolutely misinterpreted by the confession?

God Bless,
Adam

When that happens let me know and we will talk about changing the Confession then.

It is my understanding that this is a mistaken notion about the purpose of proof-texts in the Westminster Standards. Originally, they were submitted without proof-texts and Parliament sent them back with that requirement. But I was enlightened as to a different use of proof-texts (different than most modern folks would assume) at the GPTS Calvin conference a month or so ago. The understanding in 16/17th century (and earlier, If I recall correctly) thought was that if a proof-text was being cited, it meant more than simply looking at that verse. The reader was being directed to consult all of what had been written in the ancient commentaries on said verse. The idea was that one needed to consult what the church had historically believed about a particular verse/passage in interpreting that verse. Calvin did this, and the Divines did this. This is decidedly different that the way we think of proof-texting today.

 

[Spinningplates2]

I go to a PCA Church that has tried to be "more contemporary" in it's worship style. We sing three "praise songs" before the worship starts. I think it hurts our Church. Others think it is the best part of the service. The crazy thing is; that people who like modern worship are never satisfied and any failure to grow and bring in the people that they though would be drawn this this style of worship is simply proof to them that we need to be MORE contemporary.

I think John Frame has done more harm to true worship then he has helped.

 

[Knoxienne]

I go to a PCA Church that has tried to be "more contemporary" in it's worship style. We sing three "praise songs" before the worship starts. I think it hurts our Church. Others think it is the best part of the service. The crazy thing is; that people who like modern worship are never satisfied and any failure to grow and bring in the people that they though would be drawn this this style of worship is simply proof to them that we need to be MORE contemporary.

I think John Frame has done more harm to true worship then he has helped.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm not sure about this and would like to see documentation; I don't know that the proofs were used that way, at least not by the regular pew sitter who memorized the WSC and its proofs. Here is a note from Hugh M. Cartwright's article "Westminster and Establishment: A Scottish Perspective" in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century series, 2.208.

The Westminster divines, for example, were too familiar with their Bibles and with the exegetical labours of John Calvin to ignore the context when they were required to furnish scriptural proofs.67 Cunningham held that their views "can be fully established upon scriptural authority, not indeed by express texts which assert them in termini, but by fair and legitimate deduction from scriptural statements and principles.68

67. Scripture warrant for propositions under consideration was constantly discussed in Committee and Assembly. Proof texts were added to the Confession only at the insistence of Parliament, October 1646. It was suggested officially [Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards, 368, 369] that proofs were not supplied because a while volume would be required and Reformed churches generally concurred in the biblical truth of the statements made. Unofficially, there was unwillingness to unnecessarily offend Parliament which would not enact for religious matters on the basis of divine right of Scripture [The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, Vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1842), p. 2]. Baillie suspected that the late demand for proofs was intended to delay completion of the Assembly's business. He conceded that the addition of proofs would strengthen the work. These were carefully debated and reviewed between January and April 1647 [see Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.]. Confessional teaching depends on the wide sweep of Scripture and not on isolated texts. Scottish Presbyterian ordinands' unreserved owning and believing "the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith ... to be the truths of God" [e.g. Formula, Practice of the Free Church of Scotland, p. 153] has thus traditionally not involved avowed commitment to each use of the proof texts any more than the Assembly intended to commit its members. Study of the proofs on the Divines' principles of interpretation gives insight into the reasoning behind their propositions and their understanding of Scripture and illustrates how firmly based in Scripture scripturally interpreted their teachings are.

68. Principles of the Free Church, in Discussions; 273. Cf. Gillespie, A Brotherly Examination ... (1645; Works, 6)....
​

But I was enlightened as to a different use of proof-texts (different than most modern folks would assume) at the GPTS Calvin conference a month or so ago. The understanding in 16/17th century (and earlier, If I recall correctly) thought was that if a proof-text was being cited, it meant more than simply looking at that verse. The reader was being directed to consult all of what had been written in the ancient commentaries on said verse. The idea was that one needed to consult what the church had historically believed about a particular verse/passage in interpreting that verse. Calvin did this, and the Divines did this. This is decidedly different that the way we think of proof-texting today.

 

[py3ak]

For example, there are many times when the catechisms will cite one verse in defense of what they are saying. I don't think it is inconceivable that one verse could possibly be misinterpreted. What happens if someone, upon further study, we find out that that one verse has been absolutely misinterpreted by the confession?

God Bless,
Adam

When that happens let me know and we will talk about changing the Confession then.

It is my understanding that this is a mistaken notion about the purpose of proof-texts in the Westminster Standards. Originally, they were submitted without proof-texts and Parliament sent them back with that requirement. But I was enlightened as to a different use of proof-texts (different than most modern folks would assume) at the GPTS Calvin conference a month or so ago. The understanding in 16/17th century (and earlier, If I recall correctly) thought was that if a proof-text was being cited, it meant more than simply looking at that verse. The reader was being directed to consult all of what had been written in the ancient commentaries on said verse. The idea was that one needed to consult what the church had historically believed about a particular verse/passage in interpreting that verse. Calvin did this, and the Divines did this. This is decidedly different that the way we think of proof-texting today.

Carl Trueman says something very close to that in his lectures on John Owen.

 

[DMcFadden]

Ruben,

I cannot remember completely, but one of the lectures at the GPTS conference cited Trueman several times. It may have been the one being cited with reference to Reformation and Post-Reformation use of proof texts.

 

[Marrow Man]

I almost positive that the comment on the Westminster proof texts was made by David Hall during the Q&A during the first day of the conference. I could be wrong (the old gray memory ain't what she used to be...).

 

[Archlute]

The point about proof texts is moot, really, since I am not aware of any confessional Reformed denomination that makes affirming the proofs a part of their examination. I tried to submit a list of several proofs that I felt were erroneously interpreted as part of my exceptions for licensure, and was given a look like "are you kidding me?".

Hey, no one can fault me for not taking the process seriously.