Personal Views and Opinions or Orthodoxy?

[Semper Fidelis]

I decided to start a new thread on this because I don't want this thought buried in the Repent! thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=22580

JohnV, you wrote this, and Bill made some comments and I want to comment on this because the thread revolved around Baptism.

I don't see any reason to doubt that. What you said above only satisfies me more concerning that. What I won't accept is that orthodoxy is narrowed down to personal views and interpretations. It could just as well be Dispensationalism then. Or crazy Pentecostalism.

I think you and I are on the same page. We're both coming to the discussion with teachable hearts, with repentent hearts, with contrite hearts. And we're hoping to learn from each other. We don't need someone stepping in calling us to repentance over our views. That's exactly what we're trying to do, together.

John, Adam (and to everyone else reading this thread) - this is it in a nutshell. We don't need to be called to repentance over our confessional beliefs. A call to repentance essentially ends discussion on the matter. If both sides disagree and one side calls the other to repentance, what is left to discuss? And while I share some of Adam's frustration about the baptism boards, one of the reasons they exist is to offer a venue for continued discussion. A call to repentance ends that discussion.

Now, I am not suggesting that we don't challenge doctrinal positions. We should. Some teachings are not debatable (i.e. FV and NP) for most of us. Others are not so clear cut (i.e. the Clarkian threads). Again, these are some of the reasons why we are here. In my case the PB has been instrumental in moving me from dispensationalism into a more covenant-friendly view of scripture. I'll be the first to admit that I am not a WCF-Reformer.

But...semper reformanda!

JohnV,

I included Bill's portion to try to bring together a couple of ideas so be patient because I might not get clearly to the point I'm trying to make.

I've been repeatedly concerned when these discussions come up over baptism that what is criticized is not attitude (that ought to be checked at times) but truth itself.

I think between you and Rev. Winzer I started to really focus on why Confessions were important not only for Churches but individuals. As I study the history of Western Philosophy, the feature the repeats itself is hubris - men thinking they can determine Truth and that everything that came before them is rubbish.

One of these days I'm going to figure out a way to articulate a thread about what it means to be Confessional but I'm not quite ready yet. I do know that Christ Himself gave Apostles, Pastors, and Teachers to bring His Bride to the unity of the faith. He also vested authority in the Church to testify of that Truth. The testimony itself is not infallible but the Word is. The institution is not infallible but yet it has a responsibility and authority to testify of that truth.

I remember when I first became attracted to the 5 points, I thought I had discovered "Reformed theology". I think, at one point, I thought that it was "cool" that some people knew Greek, Hebrew, and Latin and could read the Scriptures all for themselves and even come up with some really new stuff that nobody had ever considered before. I suppose I don't put that beyond the pale of God's Word but, as a goal, I think far too many people think that good exegesis works that way - Don't be stifled by Confessions - those are SECONDARY documents (I wish I could emphasize it in a way to highlight its repeated refrain where the Confessions become a byword). The REAL Christians read the Church Fathers for themselves and the Word all for themselves. Then they find where the Confession has erred and, lo and behold, one of the WCF Divines was a Thomist and Aristotalean so we can jettison that interpretation of Scripture. Oh, and on the Trinity, they were just accepting what came before them but real students of the Word (and not those slavishly devoted to Confessions) should assume every Church council since Nicea was gooned up on a doctrine.

If this was mere hyperbole the above might actually be amusing. Is there any doubt that the reason why the FV/NPP movement exists is because, after all, Reformed is not enough?

Thus, I've seen you rail against people who adopt a pet theology and define the Church by it. Some want to make the Redemptive Historical hermaneutic the orthodox interpretation for a denomination, others theonomy, and still others the Clarkian view of epistemology.

I'll tell you what, John, working on Chris Coldwell's website was nice for a week or two because dealing with the scattered views of "every man and his Bible" as an Administrator becomes very tiring. It's made me impatient and mean at times. I get applications for this board from Southern Baptist Church Pastoral interns that state that they subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Every time I get an e-mail, I'm actually pleasantly surprised if 1 out of 3 times the person actually knows what it means to subscribe to a Confession.

I've come to the realization that the reason why there is a "cage stage" for "Calvinists" is because most new "Calvinists" are not Calvinists at all but people who are initially fascinated by the 5 points of Calvinism and, lacking any other theological grid, have conversations with people like: "Are you a Semi-Pelagian?" I can say that because I once asked my brother that.

Thus, this is all a long way of saying that when Bill points out the FV/NPP are obviously outside the bounds of Biblical truth, I say AMEN but I say AMEN because I agree with my Church's interpretation of the Word of God.

Thus, since most of the ruckus has been over the subject of Baptism, I simply cannot say that I completely agree that the subject of the recipients of Baptism is like unto Pentecostals and a 2nd Blessing. One, I believe with all the fiber of my convictions is in the Scriptures while the other I reject as outright error and speak angrily against it. One belief stands with a Church's right interpretation of the Word while the other stems largely from the experiences of a woman and her followers in the early 20th Century.

Now, must I be arrogant or condescending when people who I believe are confused as to the Scripture's teaching on Baptism? Absolutely not. God forbid. But must I accept that my conviction on Baptism is a "personal view". Absolutely not. Who we do or don't baptize is incredibly important. How we do or don't view our baptism is incredibly important.

I don't hate the Baptism forum. In fact, it's because of the Baptism forum that I understand the nature of my Baptism where I once was very confused. I don't love some of the ruckus I've gotten myself into there and I'm not proud of it. If it wasn't for the Baptism forum then my teaching of men at my Church would have been more impoverished. As it was, it helped me underline the nature of our trust in God even in the signs He gives us of our Grace. Both our confessions highlight that fact, the WCF more strongly so, but even the LBCF can strengthen a man impoverished by the Arminian deprecations of the Gospel.

Thus, I want to be very clear. I'm in complete agreement that we need to season our speech with love and be patient but that's on the basis that I believe I stand on solid ground - the Word of God. But I also believe, with all my heart, that the Word tells me I don't figure out what it says for myself but confess it with the Church. What I confess, I believe is Truth, the very Word of God and I simply cannot include Baptism as something that can be even placed in the same neighborhood as "indifferent doctrines". I don't think you intended to say that but I want to be very clear lest others interpret your words as such.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Now, must I be arrogant or condescending when people who I believe are confused as to the Scripture's teaching on Baptism? Absolutely not. God forbid. But must I accept that my conviction on Baptism is a "personal view". Absolutely not. Who we do or don't baptize is incredibly important. How we do or don't view our baptism is incredibly important.

Rich, wouldn't baptists feel the same way?

In fact, it's because of the Baptism forum that I understand the nature of my Baptism where I once was very confused.

That's great! Seriously, it is, but that forum has confused me more than I've ever been confused about anything in my entire life. The spirit of anger, arrogance, and pride so rule that forum that I get angry just visiting it for a few moments.

What I confess, I believe is Truth, the very Word of God and I simply cannot include Baptism as something that can be even placed in the same neighborhood as "indifferent doctrines".

Again, wouldn't baptists feel this way as well?

I don't think you intended to say that but I want to be very clear lest others interpret your words as such.

I don't think he intended to say that either, but that's the problem. Everyone enters the baptism forum believing what they do is the gospel truth they are called to stand on, defend, preach, etc. This leads to all the problems. How many members have we lost, how many former friends now no longer speak to each other because of that forum? I really don't see the blessings of it out weighing the curses. I really don't, and that has nothing to do with deciding what the bible says "on your own", if anything the problem is the opposite of that!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, wouldn't baptists feel the same way?

That's great! Seriously, it is, but that forum has confused me more than I've ever been confused about anything in my entire life. The spirit of anger, arrogance, and pride so rule that forum that I get angry just visiting it for a few moments.

Again, wouldn't baptists feel this way as well?

I don't think he intended to say that either, but that's the problem. Everyone enters the baptism forum believing what they do is the gospel truth they are called to stand on, defend, preach, etc. This leads to all the problems. How many members have we lost, how many former friends now no longer speak to each other because of that forum? I really don't see the blessings of it out weighing the curses. I really don't, and that has nothing to do with deciding what the bible says "on your own", if anything the problem is the opposite of that!

Adam,

It's not a matter of how we "feel", it's what we confess. This is the problem.

I've already acknowledged in the Repent! forum that a Baptist has the right, per the rules, to Confess according to his beliefs. I believe he is standing on His Confession when he does so. I believe He thinks he's standing on the Word of God.

But the moment I believe that our views are the same or that the differences are immaterial is the moment that the Universe explodes because Truth has ceased to have any meaning. That's not the Word of God, that's post-modernism.

Thus, as I emphasized in my post, we can be charitable and patient with others. This we expect. But, I would rather lose charity in a discussion than Truth itself.

I've encouraged folks before that if they don't like the conflict in the Baptism forum that they don't have to participate. Covenant theology is so intertwined through the whole of Reformed orthodoxy that it's impossible for those views to remain suppressed. The fact that we have Baptist Churches is proof that it's not some insignificant bit of adiafora.

Yes, some people have left the board over them but they've also left over Arminianism, Clarkiansim, Theonomy, Politics, Hermaneutics, etc. Baptism may be the think that most irks you - for others in the Christian realm it is another issue.

I think that if folks can "make peace" with the fact that the Confessions speak strongly about the issue then it's not such a personal thing. In that last thread, I thanked Bill for a gift he sent to my son for his birthday. Some of my best friends are Baptists. My pastor is a Baptist.

 

[turmeric]

It seems that there is something wrong with calling someone to repent for being a Baptist. I think they're wrong about baptism, but until they see this, accusing them of sin doesn't make sense to me. I think we should practice the principles of Romans 14 here. If Bill gave in on this point without being convinced, he would sin against his own conscience. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. It sounds very pious and steadfast to call him to repent, but he would have to sin in order to do what we ask at this point.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let's keep this thread on track. Remember, I'm the person that asked CH to refrain from this as a point of debate. I'm not arguing for a constant call to repentance. The point of my post is "What is orthodoxy?" and whether or not we can rightly call two views a "personal disagreement".

My older brother and I "personally" disagree that the Dallas Cowboys are a great football team. We "confessionally" disagree that salvation is found in Christ alone, through grace alone, and by faith alone.

 

[ReformedWretch]

The two views are not just a "personal disagreement" and I would never support saying they are. My issue is how do we converse as brothers in Christ in this area? I don't think we succeed in that regard very often.

 

[satz]

Just a thought:

Due to their views regarding church government - I believe most baptists would not admit that there is even such a thing as The Church', but rather that there were churches thoughout history. Doesn't it logically follow that a baptist would not hold the LBCF in the same regard as a presbyterian would hold the WCF?

It seems for a baptist the LBCF would have been just the result of a bunch of godly men getting together. There would be nothing particularly 'special' about that gathering to make it any different from if we were to get some faithful, godly baptist pastors to come together to discuss theology today.

 

[ReformedWretch]

..backs away slowly..

 

[Herald]

Just a thought:

Due to their views regarding church government - I believe most baptists would not admit that there is even such a thing as The Church', but rather that there were churches thoughout history. Doesn't it logically follow that a baptist would not hold the LBCF in the same regard as a presbyterian would hold the WCF?

It seems for a baptist the LBCF would have been just the result of a bunch of godly men getting together. There would be nothing particularly 'special' about that gathering to make it any different from if we were to get some faithful, godly baptist pastors to come together to discuss theology today.

Mark - you're attempting to mesh confessionalism with church polity (or maybe you're trying to distance them?). There is no disputing the fact that Baptist churches have been historically independent. As brother Rich pointed out, Baptists came into being expressly because of the baptism issue. One way of countering that was local church autonomy (independency). But even though Baptist churches have always been independent it does not mean there was a lack of unity in doctrine. That is the reason the LBC was constructed.

Also, reformed Baptist churches believe in the universal church. There is one church manifested in local fellowships (congregations). We use the word 'church' to describe these local fellowships because they are part of the called out assembly of believers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just a thought:

Due to their views regarding church government - I believe most baptists would not admit that there is even such a thing as The Church', but rather that there were churches thoughout history. Doesn't it logically follow that a baptist would not hold the LBCF in the same regard as a presbyterian would hold the WCF?

It seems for a baptist the LBCF would have been just the result of a bunch of godly men getting together. There would be nothing particularly 'special' about that gathering to make it any different from if we were to get some faithful, godly baptist pastors to come together to discuss theology today.

I think your description of the way Baptists view their Confession is pretty close to the way most Presbyterians view the WCF.

I obviously don't agree with that view but that is again, a Confessional disagreement. This is why we debate and discuss. We have different interpretations of the Word.

To some extent, I have to hold Baptists to some level of Confessionalism or it makes approval of membership difficult.

 

[bookslover]

The testimony itself is not fallible but the Word is. The institution is not fallible but yet it has a responsibility and authority to testify of that truth.

Don't you mean this the other way around? "The testimony itself is not infallible, but the Word is. The institution is not infallible, but yet it has a responsibility and authority to testify of that truth." It's the Roman Catholics who think that their institution is infallible.

As for baptism, I think it's helpful to see it as similar to eschatology: the Church has culled three different main views of eschatology (pre, post, and a) from the same scriptural information. Good Reformed men have historically held all three positions.

In a similar way, the Church has culled two different main views of baptism from the same scriptural information (credo and paedo). Again, good Reformed men have historically held both positions.

Now, we paedos think the credos are wrong, and vice versa. Since both sides try their best to base their views on Scripture, the best thing for everyone to do is to for each side to hold its view sincerely. Then, some day, when we're all in Heaven, we'll find out who is right. The same is true for eschatology.

And, by the time we find out who was right, we'll all be completely perfected saints and it won't matter anymore, anyway!

 

[Pilgrim]

It seems that there is something wrong with calling someone to repent for being a Baptist. I think they're wrong about baptism, but until they see this, accusing them of sin doesn't make sense to me. I think we should practice the principles of Romans 14 here. If Bill gave in on this point without being convinced, he would sin against his own conscience. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. It sounds very pious and steadfast to call him to repent, but he would have to sin in order to do what we ask at this point.

The WCF at 28.5 states that it is "a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance."

 

[Herald]

Rich - great topic and one that deserves to be developed.

When I joined the PB in August of '05 I was a decided Calvinist. I subscribed to the 1689 LBC but would have pled ignorance if I was drilled on it. Nearly two years later the commitment that many Presbyterians have to the WCF challenged me to examine the LBC. While I still question part of it (namely the Pope being the antichrist), I can solidly refer to myself as confessional. Why? Because I am convinced that the LBC accurately reflects what the bible teaches on the areas that the confession addresses.

Now, I know some Greek. I have been to bible college. I even graduated from the New Jersey public school system. Do any of these accomplishments put me in a superior position to challenge nearly 500 years of Protestant scholarship? By raising this question am I automatically calling epistemology to task? Not at all. All of us are in a quest for knowledge. The framers of the LBC and WCF were no different. From all historical accounts these men wrestled with the scripture in order to interpret it correctly. Infalliable? Of course not. But further theological study on both sides (Presbyterian and Baptist) affirmed the commentary on scripture for both confessions. I am not saying that we should blindly trust confessions at the expense of scripture. The confessions only have worth to the degree that they accurately reflect scripture. Even then it isn't the confession that is right but scripture.

Now there is an inherent problem when we have one side (WCF) that claims the other side (LBC) is in error. No one likes to be told that they are wrong. Both sides agree that scripture only has one interpretation. Of course both sides conclude that they are on the right side. That's a problem and the purpose of this thread is not to solve what hasn't be solved in nearly 500 years. It's there like a ripe pimple on the end of our nose. While the baptism forums may never convince an individual to switch sides, they do have the ability to raise questions (and effect change) in other areas. I've said this before, the baptism forums have been instrumental in helping me move from dispensationalism to a more covenant-friendly* theology. They've actually helped me frame my own position within the context of the LBC. Does this mean the vitriol in the baptism forums is acceptable? No. Rudeness is never excusable. Some become so rude and arrogant that it does effect the desire to interact with them again. When that occurs it is sad and regrettable.

Lastly, I want to touch on the subject of orthodoxy. What does orthodoxy mean? Well it is one of those terms that is defined by those who use it. It is similar to the term "evangelical." And evangelical today is much different that an evangelical 50 years ago. But still, what does the term imply? Well the term basically means a common set of beliefs. I suppose you can divide orthodoxy into two sections: general orthodoxy and specific orthodoxy. For example: Paedo-baptism would be specific to WCF Reformed churches. Trinitarian baptism would be more generally accepted. That is one of the reasons I have no problem considering both views of baptism as orthodox within the sphere of Christianity. In the Repent! thread Adam mentioned "crazy Pentecostalism." I would not consider Pentecostal doctrine orthodox since since it has no solid basis in church history and is not in keeping with our approved confessions. Does this toss me in the presuppositional camp? Yep. Sure does. I am assuming that our accepted confessions define what is orthodox.

*Let me explain what I mean by covenant-friendly. I am reformed in the WCF sense of the word. I am a credo baptist. That causes a major schew in the way I view covenant theology. But I do have a convenantal view of scripture. It isn't the same as my WCF brethren but it's not Darbyian either.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Don't you mean this the other way around? "The testimony itself is not infallible, but the Word is. The institution is not infallible, but yet it has a responsibility and authority to testify of that truth." It's the Roman Catholics who think that their institution is infallible.

Edited, thanks for catching that.

As for baptism, I think it's helpful to see it as similar to eschatology: the Church has culled three different main views of eschatology (pre, post, and a) from the same scriptural information. Good Reformed men have historically held all three positions.

I completely disagree. The reason why eschatology is indifferent is because it is Confessionally so. Which part of the WCF on Baptism would you claim is indifferent? How about the part where it says that those baptized are not undoubtedly regenerated? Is that indifferent? What about those that claim that Baptism unites a man to Christ? Indifferent?

 

[Herald]

To some extent, I have to hold Baptists to some level of Confessionalism or it makes approval of membership difficult.

Rich - keep in mind that there are two types of Baptists that we are going to encounter on the PB. The first are Baptists who are Calvinists but still mired in the dispensational system. They usually attend free-willy churches and feel like a fish out of water because of their stance on Calvinism. The second group would be Reformed (Particular) Baptists. Usually they are confessional (LBC) and have a more thorough grasp on the doctrines of sovereign grace and covenantalism.

 

[Pilgrim]

Just a thought:

Due to their views regarding church government - I believe most baptists would not admit that there is even such a thing as The Church', but rather that there were churches thoughout history. Doesn't it logically follow that a baptist would not hold the LBCF in the same regard as a presbyterian would hold the WCF?

It seems for a baptist the LBCF would have been just the result of a bunch of godly men getting together. There would be nothing particularly 'special' about that gathering to make it any different from if we were to get some faithful, godly baptist pastors to come together to discuss theology today.

It is Landmark Baptists that deny such a thing as the universal church. The LBCF, the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message all affirm the idea of a universal church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich - keep in mind that there are two types of Baptists that we are going to encounter on the PB. The first are Baptists who are Calvinists but still mired in the dispensational system. They usually attend free-willy churches and feel like a fish out of water because of their stance on Calvinism. The second group would be Reformed (Particular) Baptists. Usually they are confessional (LBC) and have a more thorough grasp on the doctrines of sovereign grace and covenantalism.

No, I understand that Bill. Part of that dynamic makes discussion pretty interesting at times.

They'll come in and post in a thread like:

"Well, if you were consistent with the 5 points you would see this...."

or they'll have no idea about the Regulative Principle of Worship or something else....

I try to be patient but Admin and Mod work isn't always fun (the fun part is messing with other's tag lines and avatars). To have to regularly explain the same thing over and over to people gets wearying. It's the nature of being patient and being a teacher to others so I'm not excusing it.

Nevertheless, it's part of the reason we don't allow full blown Arminians on the board because think of all the work we'd be doing every time a new person came on board and how we'd spend all of our time trying to explain over and over and over again the same things and defeating the same tired canards. I honestly don't know where James White finds the patience to deal with it.

This board is interesting to say the least. It's not just a matter of being Confessional at times - it's having good arguments and being informed. If you've dealt with the reasons why the Confessional writers wrote a certain thing then it's doubtful the person has a head full of vinegar to label something abruptly.

I've said this before and I still believe it - I'm not convinced that the Founder's Movement would gain what it thinks it would gain in the final analysis unless it sought to improve a general respect for a Confession itself. Much of what plagues SBC Churches in bad theology is the independent spirit itself. If you just give the independent spirit the five points and say "Do with them whatever you wish as you read the Scriptures and come to your own conclusions..." then it isn't a recipe for unity. If anything it will create the same divisions where people form their convictions in all their unique and diverse ways that they think is the "...consistent expression of Calvinism."

 

[Herald]

I try to be patient but Admin and Mod work isn't always fun (the fun part is messing with other's tag lines and avatars).

Aha! You finally come clean!

 

[bookslover]

On the general subject of discussing theology and whether or not secondary standards are to be used to limit such discussion, I think this writer makes a good point:

Scripture must have priority over Confessions. One way in which we can be "always reforming" is to review and rewrite our Confessions. Have you ever considered it astonishing that the Confessions to which most twenty-first century denominations swear allegiance are those of the seventeenth century? In my view, the authors of those Confessions would be horrified to think that we had not updated them to deal with modern theological problems and heresies. The main concerns of those Confessions were the errors of late medieval Catholicism. For the past 150 years, the main opponent of evangelical Christianity has been liberal theology. That type of theology is more or less dead now but it has been replaced by many others, such as feminist and post-modern theologies, and none of them is dealt with in the Confessions and Catechisms we use in our churches.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am happy to affirm my belief in the core theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith (which is the Confession of Faith of my church, the Church of Scotland), but I also believe that it is time for new Confessions, which speak to the issues of today. The Scots Confession filled a significant role in my country from 1560 until 1647. It was then replaced, not because it was found to be wrong but because many issues had arisen in the interim period with which the Scots Confession did not deal. Similarly, we need new Confessions that will hold to the central theological affirmations of the old Confessions but which will apply that theology to the issues of today.

The key point, of course, is that Confessions must never take priority over Scripture. There is, in many evangelical circles, an unfortunate and increasing tendency to put tradition (in the form of Confessions) on a par with Scripture, an error that evangelicals often impute to Catholic theologians. In certain circles, to suggest that the Westminster Divines made mistakes is almost tantamount to heresy! A "semper reformanda" approach is vital if we are to avoid giving Confessions priority over Scripture. The great Reformed Confessions of the seventeenth century were undoubtedly a high point of the movement, involving a certain codification of the stage the tradition had then reached. Unfortunately, many still try to make decisions in respect of modern theological controversies by asking what the Westminster Divines said on the matter, instead of asking what the Scripture says. This has often led to priority being given to Confession rather than Scripture in settling debates. - A. T. B. McGowan, "Introduction," in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, A. T. B. McGowan, editor (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), pp. 15-16.

I might have worded some of this differently, but I think his main point is cogent. For the conservative Reformed community, "always reforming" should mean "always working to clarify and improve our understanding of the Scriptures," not "all theological thinking stopped in the 4th century or the 17th century." Now, this can go in a wrong direction (I submit the Confession of 1967 as Exhibit "A" - but it wasn't written by conservatives), but it doesn't have to. Even the Westminster Divines themselves said that final authority lies with the Scriptures, not even their own confession (see Conf. 1.10 - "ancient writers" also now includes the writers of 1647), which they implicitly admitted could be mistaken. Frankly, the Divines' view of their own work is more healthy than some modern opinions I've heard.

The parameters of theological discussion are to be set by the Scriptures, not the secondary standards. (To do it the other way around can be a subtle way of placing merely man-made documents over the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Scriptures, allowing the former to control the latter.) Whatever the Bible discusses is fair game for conversation - for the purpose of, again, "always working to clarify and improve our understanding of the Scriptures."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

On the general subject of discussing theology and whether or not secondary standards are to be used to limit such discussion, I think this writer makes a good point:

Scripture must have priority over Confessions. One way in which we can be "always reforming" is to review and rewrite our Confessions. Have you ever considered it astonishing that the Confessions to which most twenty-first century denominations swear allegiance are those of the seventeenth century? In my view, the authors of those Confessions would be horrified to think that we had not updated them to deal with modern theological problems and heresies. The main concerns of those Confessions were the errors of late medieval Catholicism. For the past 150 years, the main opponent of evangelical Christianity has been liberal theology. That type of theology is more or less dead now but it has been replaced by many others, such as feminist and post-modern theologies, and none of them is dealt with in the Confessions and Catechisms we use in our churches.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am happy to affirm my belief in the core theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith (which is the Confession of Faith of my church, the Church of Scotland), but I also believe that it is time for new Confessions, which speak to the issues of today. The Scots Confession filled a significant role in my country from 1560 until 1647. It was then replaced, not because it was found to be wrong but because many issues had arisen in the interim period with which the Scots Confession did not deal. Similarly, we need new Confessions that will hold to the central theological affirmations of the old Confessions but which will apply that theology to the issues of today.

The key point, of course, is that Confessions must never take priority over Scripture. There is, in many evangelical circles, an unfortunate and increasing tendency to put tradition (in the form of Confessions) on a par with Scripture, an error that evangelicals often impute to Catholic theologians. In certain circles, to suggest that the Westminster Divines made mistakes is almost tantamount to heresy! A "semper reformanda" approach is vital if we are to avoid giving Confessions priority over Scripture. The great Reformed Confessions of the seventeenth century were undoubtedly a high point of the movement, involving a certain codification of the stage the tradition had then reached. Unfortunately, many still try to make decisions in respect of modern theological controversies by asking what the Westminster Divines said on the matter, instead of asking what the Scripture says. This has often led to priority being given to Confession rather than Scripture in settling debates. - A. T. B. McGowan, "Introduction," in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, A. T. B. McGowan, editor (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), pp. 15-16.

I might have worded some of this differently, but I think his main point is cogent. For the conservative Reformed community, "always reforming" should mean "always working to clarify and improve our understanding of the Scriptures," not "all theological thinking stopped in the 4th century or the 17th century." Now, this can go in a wrong direction (I submit the Confession of 1967 as Exhibit "A" - but it wasn't written by conservatives), but it doesn't have to. Even the Westminster Divines themselves said that final authority lies with the Scriptures, not even their own confession (see Conf. 1.10 - "ancient writers" also now includes the writers of 1647), which they implicitly admitted could be mistaken. Frankly, the Divines' view of their own work is more healthy than some modern opinions I've heard.

The parameters of theological discussion are to be set by the Scriptures, not the secondary standards. (To do it the other way around can be a subtle way of placing merely man-made documents over the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Scriptures, allowing the former to control the latter.) Whatever the Bible discusses is fair game for conversation - for the purpose of, again, "always working to clarify and improve our understanding of the Scriptures."

I think the quote was foolish. Wow! God's Word hasn't changed in 400 years! Are you kidding me? He hasn't changed His mind about the nature of justification in all that time?! What? Surely something new must be in the Scriptures by now? In fact, the real problem with the Westminster Divines is that they hadn't updated Paul very much at all. 1600 years after the fact, they should have been modernizing his views. I'm sure Paul would be horrified that people had not updated his interpretation of the Old Testament in 1600 years!!!!!

Finally, Richard, as I've said before: It belongs to Synods and Councils to settle matters of controversy. You have many heretics that will wholeheartedly agree with you that the WCF is wrong. When a Synod or Council decides to reform a doctrine then we'll talk.

Why is the Church's Confession "man-made" and your interpretation not "man made"?

 

[Herald]

You have many heretics that will wholeheartedly agree with you that the WCF is wrong.

As an aside, the LBC states:

26.4 The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. In Him, by the appointment of the Father, is vested in a supreme and sovereign manner all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church. The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be head of the Church, but he is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, who the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.

This has always troubled me. Is the Pope the antichrist or the spirit of antichrist? I'm not trying to attack my own confession but is it permissable to have difficulties with certain parts of the confession?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bill,

As you're probably aware, the American Presbyterian Church (in a Synod) modified the WCF on this point

I don't think there's a problem with having difficulty with something in the Confession. I just have a problem with dismissing the Church blithely.

 

[MW]

I think the church should have the liberty to revise Richard Zuelch and others of like mind.

 

[bookslover]

Finally, Richard, as I've said before: It belongs to Synods and Councils to settle matters of controversy.

True. However, the beginnings of discussions of changes don't originate at the synod or council level. Synods and councils don't say, out of the blue, "Hey! Let's discuss X doctrine!" Discussions regarding possible changes usually begin with an individual somewhere. It's some individual who gets the ball rolling initially; if his idea has merit, it will eventually make it up to synod or council level, where it then will be discussed.

The church's confessions are man-made because they are put together by uninspired, fallible men - something the Westminster Divines themselves admit. It's not legitimate to try to sneak the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" in the back door and apply them to confessions and catechisms. (I'm not accusing you of this, by the way.) Those terms apply only to the Scriptures - and even then, technically, they apply only to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek autograph manuscripts, which have not survived.

 

[Herald]

Bill,

As you're probably aware, the American Presbyterian Church (in a Synod) modified the WCF on this point

I don't think there's a problem with having difficulty with something in the Confession. I just have a problem with dismissing the Church blithely.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Herald]

Those terms apply only to the Scriptures - and even then, technically, they apply only to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek autograph manuscripts, which have not survived.

Richard - here's the thing, while I agree that the scriptures were inerrant in the original autographs I also believe that the bible we have today is infallible. The known variances in the the ancient texts have not effected any point of doctrine. Therefore the content of the bible is infallible, although the copied manuscripts are not inerrant.

This caused a major problem in our church in 2005. We lost an elder (and eventually a member) over this issue. The ramifications of a fallible bible are monstrous. This is another reason why confessions are so valuable.

 

[bookslover]

...while I agree that the scriptures were inerrant in the original autographs I also believe that the bible we have today is infallible. The known variances in the the ancient texts have not effected any point of doctrine. Therefore the content of the bible is infallible, although the copied manuscripts are not inerrant.

Correct. I forgot to add what you've said in my post. Very well put..................................................................................................................................................................for a Baptist.

 

[JohnV]

Rich:

I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I just spotted this thread last night, and had no time to think it through and to respond. It gave me time to think about it while I was out, and come back this morning with a response.

You're right about the orthodoxy part. The difference on baptism has to do with orthodoxy, not personal views. The roadblock to orthodoxy is, of course, personal views that drown out orthodoxy, or at least make it hard to see. What I try to concern myself with, to reach those with whom I discuss these things, is trying to get around these personal roadblocks to orthodoxy.

I'm not sure I follow everything you're saying. I'd like to ask you what you mean by "confessionalism". For me it is an ecclesiastical bond, and a personal safeguard, in the context of Sola Scriptura. If the Confessions point to any other authority than that, whether the Church, the minister or elders, or themselves, then they're not doing their job. All these things are meant to point us to the sole authority of the Word. They are not the glasses we put on before we read the Bible; if anything they're the ones that we will end up having on when we read the Bible correctly. But you won't notice that because you will be reading the Bible for what it says on its own. The Confessions are meant to keep us there. They're the history of doctrinal struggles in the Church, with the Bible's answers to them written out. That's my view of confessionalism, at least in part, as it pertains to this topic.

There have been things in the past too. There have been views on paedo baptism that were just as troubling as other things that have had to be dealt with. At least one of them came from my own writings on this Board. I never meant for my views to become a catalyst for such things. But it happened all the same. I am now, perhaps, a bit too careful not to let that happen again.

No amount of arguing from either side will make so much as a dent of a change in the truth itself. But hopefully we can make a dent in the things that keep us from seeing the truth. That's how I approach these kinds of things. The only thing that I have to lose is my own self-deceptions, if I approach these things prayerfully, and open only to the truth. I come to these arguments with the intent to lose, not to win. The truth can't lose. So that's the only way to really win.

I'm sorry if I didn't answer your concern. I'm not sure I follow.

 

[JohnV]

You're right about something else too. Once I know where I stand about something, and why, I don't need to labour the point. I should just butt out of those discussions instead of railing at anyone.

Please accept my apologies and confession of sin.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich:

I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I just spotted this thread last night, and had no time to think it through and to respond. It gave me time to think about it while I was out, and come back this morning with a response.

Not at all Brother. When it's early here it's late there. It's late here now (or getting there.

You're right about the orthodoxy part. The difference on baptism has to do with orthodoxy, not personal views. The roadblock to orthodoxy is, of course, personal views that drown out orthodoxy, or at least make it hard to see. What I try to concern myself with, to reach those with whom I discuss these things, is trying to get around these personal roadblocks to orthodoxy.

I agree. The problem is never with God's revelation. I think the reason I wanted to point these things out is to help you clarify (perhaps others didn't think it was needed). The point of 2nd blessing Pentecostals was brought up and I think some might have misinterpreted as you placing the issue of Baptism at that point.

I'm not sure I follow everything you're saying. I'd like to ask you what you mean by "confessionalism". For me it is an ecclesiastical bond, and a personal safeguard, in the context of Sola Scriptura. If the Confessions point to any other authority than that, whether the Church, the minister or elders, or themselves, then they're not doing their job. All these things are meant to point us to the sole authority of the Word. They are not the glasses we put on before we read the Bible; if anything they're the ones that we will end up having on when we read the Bible correctly. But you won't notice that because you will be reading the Bible for what it says on its own. The Confessions are meant to keep us there. They're the history of doctrinal struggles in the Church, with the Bible's answers to them written out. That's my view of confessionalism, at least in part, as it pertains to this topic.

I checked to see if I said "confessionalism". I know it's silly but I don't like "isms" as a general rule. I think we're saying the same thing. My view of Sola Scriptura is that God has revealed His Word to the Church and it is the goal of the Church, the communicant Body, to testify to its Truth. The Reformers did not see themselves as pioneers but as recovering or reforming something where the Church had veered. They sought not to ensure just they got it but that their concern was the Body itself. They quoted and were comfortable with their forebears in a way that makes some uneasy now. "Why not just go straight to the Word?" Well, in my view, it is alien to the Word to not "dialog" with the Church itself as to what she confesses and has confessed.

I've told this story before but I ate lunch with Mike Horton in 2002 when the FV thing was first starting to heat up. He was going to be meeting with Doug Wilson soon. I didn't know what the issues were yet but he said something I've chewed on ever since to the sense of: the Reformed have always viewed their theology as a dialog with the Saints of the past and their Confession of the Scriptures meaning. There are some today that learn some Greek and Latin and logic and feel qualified to recast everything according to their personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

I think the reason why you caused me to reflect is that I understood, from some of your posts, that you had been the victim of people that abused the authority of a minister by attempting to bind the consciences of men on things that the Church had not confessed as doctrine. Ever since that time, it's been putting me on a trajectory of trying to understand more fully how the Church is supposed to Confess where she must as well as to not try to add to "doctrine" where she is not permitted. I think pride in intellectual achievement and a desire for a "novel" approach to the Word is much to blame. ONe of the things that marked Princeton for so long is how un-Novel they were - kept affirming that tired old orthodoxy long after Europe and America had given fully into Kant.

There have been things in the past too. There have been views on paedo baptism that were just as troubling as other things that have had to be dealt with. At least one of them came from my own writings on this Board. I never meant for my views to become a catalyst for such things. But it happened all the same. I am now, perhaps, a bit too careful not to let that happen again.

No amount of arguing from either side will make so much as a dent of a change in the truth itself. But hopefully we can make a dent in the things that keep us from seeing the truth. That's how I approach these kinds of things. The only thing that I have to lose is my own self-deceptions, if I approach these things prayerfully, and open only to the truth. I come to these arguments with the intent to lose, not to win. The truth can't lose. So that's the only way to really win.

Good points and thanks for the interaction.