More on Confessionalism

[MW]

Are you saying that you and I are not both Presbyterians, for instance, and that American who confess what they call the Wesminster Confession of Faith should call their Confession something else?

If I believe in the establishment principle and you don't then obviously we are Presbyterians who differ on the subject. If my confession maintains the establishment principle and yours doesn't then obviously our confessions are different and shouldn't be called by the same name. The point at which your confession differs from mine was not written by the Westminster Assembly of divines, and therefore should not be falsely respresented as their work.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It may be the case that she erred. The point is, however, that the Church has the authority to revise a Confession to comport it with Scripture. It would also seem to be in the realm of Church authority to rule by Synod that such an error exists and not merely the dictates of individual ministers.

At the point at which this so-called "confession" is no longer regarded as comporting with Scripture it ceases to be a confession in the proper sense of the term. To then speak of revising it as a "confession" is a misnomer. It is quite clear that the confession is not regarded as a subordinate standard when such language is employed.

I don't understand this point. If a confession is a summary of Scriptural doctrines x,y, and z and the Church has studied the issue and determined that, in fact, the Scriptures teach x and z, what is she to call this? Is she supposed to write an entirely new document and state that the old Confession is no longer binding or may she revise the document that contains the body of doctrines?

Traditionally it has been understood that the church has the authority to make a declaratory statement as to the way in which she understands her confession, as per the 1647 adopting act of the Church of Scotland. Revision leaves office-bearers breaking their vows to God and saying yea-nay.

I don't know if I'm understanding this properly. Are you saying that, once the 1647 WCF was agreed upon, that the Church could never again look at anything she had written and determined there was any error in it? Or are you stating that, if she found errors, she could not act upon them for fear of breaking a vow to uphold the error?

What were the framers of the WCF bound to, in terms of vows, before they adopted the WCF? Were some breaking vows to disagree with the 39 Articles?

That last paragraph is excellent. If the church further studies an issue and comes to the conclusion that the Confession needs to be revised and/or amended, then how can we as Protestants possibly argue against this.

The original WCF did not just fall out of the sky, it is the product, not only of the confessions which went before it, but of further study and refinement. I cannot understand why some people think it was okay for the Westminster Divines to revise the church's confession, but it is automatically wrong for anyone to ever even to suggest a revision to the WCF itself.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Are you saying that you and I are not both Presbyterians, for instance, and that American who confess what they call the Wesminster Confession of Faith should call their Confession something else?

If I believe in the establishment principle and you don't then obviously we are Presbyterians who differ on the subject. If my confession maintains the establishment principle and yours doesn't then obviously our confessions are different and shouldn't be called by the same name. The point at which your confession differs from mine was not written by the Westminster Assembly of divines, and therefore should not be falsely respresented as their work.

The part of the Confession which is not revised is still the work of the Westminster Divines. Though for my part, I would prefer (this is not a dogma) that if a denomination wishes to make amendment to the WCF that it do it in another document (like the RPCNA testimony).

 

[MW]

I cannot understand why some people think it was okay for the Westminster Divines to revise the church's confession, but it is automatically wrong for anyone to ever even to suggest a revision to the WCF itself.

The Divines did not revise the church's confession. The Ordinance of the Lords and Commons for convening the Assembly states they were called amongst other things "for vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the said church." The Church of Scotland's approving Act declares the Confession "in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk."

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Are you saying that you and I are not both Presbyterians, for instance, and that American who confess what they call the Wesminster Confession of Faith should call their Confession something else?

If I believe in the establishment principle and you don't then obviously we are Presbyterians who differ on the subject. If my confession maintains the establishment principle and yours doesn't then obviously our confessions are different and shouldn't be called by the same name. The point at which your confession differs from mine was not written by the Westminster Assembly of divines, and therefore should not be falsely respresented as their work.

The part of the Confession which is not revised is still the work of the Westminster Divines. Though for my part, I would prefer (this is not a dogma) that if a denomination wishes to make amendment to the WCF that it do it in another document (like the RPCNA testimony).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I cannot understand why some people think it was okay for the Westminster Divines to revise the church's confession, but it is automatically wrong for anyone to ever even to suggest a revision to the WCF itself.

The Divines did not revise the church's confession. The Ordinance of the Lords and Commons for convening the Assembly states they were called amongst other things "for vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the said church." The Church of Scotland's approving Act declares the Confession "in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk."

But would it have been okay for them to do so? The fact that the WCF replaced the Scots Confession surely shows us that the Scottish Church was not against further Confessional formulation.

And they certainly did revise what had been taught in the 39 Articles (though they did not formerly revise them as I believe this was attempted but abandoned).

 

[MW]

But would it have been okay for them to do so? The fact that the WCF replaced the Scots Confession surely shows us that the Scottish Church was not against further Confessional formulation.

And they certainly did revise what had been taught in the 39 Articles (though they did not formerly revise them as I believe this was attempted but abandoned).

Further confessional formulation and revision of confessions are two different things. A church might formulate a response to the charismatic movement and make it confessional without altering the received doctrine of the church. As noted earlier, confession defines the church: change the confession and the church changes.

 

[bookslover]

You say that Scripture is "wrapped up in unintelligible mystery" without the normed norm (or system of theology). Let me ask the same question this way: I have a close friend who knew nothing of Christianity (or a normed norm) and was converted one night when he read John's gospel. That doesn't sound like an "unintelligible mystery" to me.

Marty, some wires must have become crossed somewhere, because your answer seems geared towards teaching me that Scripture is not unintelligible mystery as if I don't already believe it; but that is the very point I am maintaining. It is because it is not unintelligible that confession is normative. Undermine the normative nature of confession and you undermine this perspicuity of Scripture.

Your converted friend undoubtedly understood something from the Gospel of John which led to his conversion, and what he understood was considered to be the teaching of the Bible itself. This again confirms my point concerning the normative nature of confession.

And it's important to remember that your friend was able to understand the Gospel of John because, unknown to him at that moment, he had been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and was, thus, able to understand John's Gospel from a spiritual, and not just an intellectual, point of view. It's the Holy Spirit's work that made the Bible's saving message intelligible to him since it is He who applies the Bible's perspicuity to a person's mind and heart.

A still-spiritually-dead unbeliever might be able to get a certain amount of intellectual understanding of the Bible. But, until he is regenerated, he will not progress beyond that to a saving knowledge of what he reads.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

But would it have been okay for them to do so? The fact that the WCF replaced the Scots Confession surely shows us that the Scottish Church was not against further Confessional formulation.

And they certainly did revise what had been taught in the 39 Articles (though they did not formerly revise them as I believe this was attempted but abandoned).

Further confessional formulation and revision of confessions are two different things. A church might formulate a response to the charismatic movement and make it confessional without altering the received doctrine of the church. As noted earlier, confession defines the church: change the confession and the church changes.

Well, I see your point. However, there is grave danger of adopting the untenable Steelite position that only they can claim a heritage with the Second Reformation, as only they adhere to every jot and tittle of the Church of Scotland's original views.

 

[MW]

Well, I see your point. However, there is grave danger of adopting the untenable Steelite position that only they can claim a heritage with the Second Reformation, as only they adhere to every jot and tittle of the Church of Scotland's original views.

Agreed! The idea of using a Covenant intended to unify as a cause of division is appalling. The same would apply to the Confession.