Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine.
Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?
As one who has not requested exception, no. Every doctrine, though difficult, like the sabbath, are faithful summary of Scripture.
We would be left with very little, something like a short list of essentials, which is not even distinctly reformed.
I'm not familiar enough with the alternative views to comment only that, there is not any evidence any of the Westminster Divines believed the alternate modern views, so it is best handled as an exception, and evaluated both individually from the standpoint of the system as well as within the context of the totality of their biblical theology.Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it.
It doesn't seem avoiding that brings clarity, integrity, or unity.
n other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?
I don't think anything needs to be said louder. That's why it is written down in careful, concise manner so even the layman can learn from and understand it.
Not if what it says now is all biblical and important truth.Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more?
All this would do is further divide and confuse God's people, especially in reformed churches.
For that logic, why not remove the parts about murder, lying, cheating and stealing? (By the way, I don't think there is evidence there is much, if any, difference between continent and puritan on sabbath. The Dutch were/are some of the strongest advocates of keeping the sabbath holy.For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.
Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either.
We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this?
We already have such a Confession.
No Standard can be possibly fully obeyed in this Life. Not the ten commandments, not the doctrine summarized in the historic Confessions. Perfect obedience is only in Christ. It's Christ's righteousness alone that saves us.All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.
You, of all people, must know this.