WCF Vs Blind WCF Following

[JohnV]

I would not put my trust in a man to teach me about trees and shrubs if he couldn't tell the difference between them. Neither would I put my trust in a man to teach me about Bible doctrine and men's opinions if he could not tell the difference between them.

There are three views of the millennium, of which none violate the WCF. And anyone who holds to one or the other is not being unconfessional by doing so. He is free to do so, and no one should question that man's integrity. But if he teaches any one of them as Bible doctrine, then that shows that he doesn't know what Bible doctrine is. Obviously he is confused, not only about Bible doctrine but also about his own office.

The "whole counsel of God" cannot include all three millennial views. Yet all three are ruled as not violating the rule of faith.

Where the matter becomes "unconfessional" is where a minister takes it upon himself to include into the "whole counsel of God" what is not authorized by God. God has not authorized any one view on the millennium. He has not revealed that to us. There are pros and cons to all three, but that's not because the Word is contradictory; it's because of our limited understanding and because some vital information is not given to us.

When a minister begins to preach from the pulpit as if he has the right to include within the "whole counsel of God", or exclude from the "whole counsel of God", according to his own convictions rather than ecclesiastical authority, then he breaks with the confessional standards. The Reformed definition of a true church begins with the pure preaching of the Word.

So a minister who would insist upon his right or need to preach Presuppositionalism, or Premillennialism, or The Analogical Day Theory, or Federal Vision, is breaking with the rule of faith and with the calling of his office. These are not doctrines, and have not been authorized to be preached. It would fall into the area of inciting schism in the church. That is the historical Reformed position. That is clearly what the WCF and the BC state concerning their own limitations and those of the officers of the churches.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Posts arguing for and contra theonomy moved to Law of God forum.

 

[Civbert]

This is to put the cart before the horse, and is a good illustration of just the kind of attitude that got this thread started in the first place. The first and last court of appeal is always the Scriptures.

Could you explain your comments? What do you mean by "attitude"?

If Scriptures are "the first and last court of appeal" then I see no reason for having a statement of faith.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't know if Mr Ritchie is thinking this but it has long been on my mind. It is troubling that in the Reformed world, when pressed in a debate or need to give an answer, many of us just copy/paste 600 pages from some unknown Puritan or the Confession, give no inferences from that statement, and expect that such solves the debate.

Now, I guess if you are in a Reformed setting and are arguing what the confession says, that's probably valid.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The point in the end is that any doctrine, even if it is a-Confessional, has to be treated with care. Ministers ought to be aware of the fact when something around the fenceline is taking them in a direction where they are now disagreeing with the Church even if they didn't start out that way. At that point, they ought to be respectful of everybody in their congregation who they know has sworn an oath to the Church but not to their opinions on a doctrine. If men would merely be more clear on where they are opining in some disagreement with the Confession then there would be a lot less rancor.

Who gets to decide that something is or is not, a-Confessional? When one's wording changes? When one reaches a disagreement with another on the subject? When a General Assembly rules on the issue?

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

I think we need to take a different look at it. In the end, we'll all find there was some error in our theology. But isn't it clear to us all that the Church has some role in Confessing? I would rather hold my peace than contribute to schism. Even if I can get Calvin, Rutherford, and Gillespie on my side, it might still be a great evil to disturb the Church's unity.

Is there a criteria where we can discover when the "might be evil" becomes "it is evil"?

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Who gets to decide that something is or is not, a-Confessional? When one's wording changes? When one reaches a disagreement with another on the subject? When a General Assembly rules on the issue?

CT

The Church's courts and, yes, eventually GA.

And this does happen by the way. The Irons case in the SoCal Presbytery is a good example of this.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Is there a criteria where we can discover when the "might be evil" becomes "it is evil"?

CT

What schism? Read the other thread that DTK started. There are no easy answers for this because God knows the heart. This is a general warning about individuals who arrogate to themselves the role of the Church because they are so personally well-studied.

 

[RamistThomist]

I was thinking back on a few things. I guess this is one of the reasons I argued that logic and philosophy were neglected in Reformed studies.

I know a lot of young people (age 20-35, I guess) who are very good at hitting "ctrl/c + ctrl/v" but not at showing how that wins the argument. It's easy to copy and paste from the confession. Logical analyses are a lot more difficult. I realize I run the risk of painting with a broad brush. I hope I don't.

How many of us dream at night of being the next Luther and the next Machen? We want to heroically ride in on the white horse, nail a copy of the Confession to the seminary door, and ride away in the sunset. That's a lot more fun than working hard over the long run at a university that attacks the Christian union of faith and intellect.

It's fun to dream of being a dashing Luther, but how many of us buckle down and want to be the next Alvin Plantinga or George Marsen (there's a historian for you!)?

 

[wsw201]

Daniel,

There is a difference between the definition of the True Church and the Visible Church. The early reformers as well as the later reformers would agree that the RC is a false church but is within the visible church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was thinking back on a few things. I guess this is one of the reasons I argued that logic and philosophy were neglected in Reformed studies.

I know a lot of young people (age 20-35, I guess) who are very good at hitting "ctrl/c + ctrl/v" but not at showing how that wins the argument. It's easy to copy and paste from the confession. Logical analyses are a lot more difficult. I realize I run the risk of painting with a broad brush. I hope I don't.

How many of us dream at night of being the next Luther and the next Machen? We want to heroically ride in on the white horse, nail a copy of the Confession to the seminary door, and ride away in the sunset. That's a lot more fun than working hard over the long run at a university that attacks the Christian union of faith and intellect.

It's fun to dream of being a dashing Luther, but how many of us buckle down and want to be the next Alvin Plantinga or George Marsen (there's a historian for you!)?

Jacob,

I agree with you in principle. If an argument needs to be made then the person ought to be able to articulate the argument. There are times, of course, where Calvin (or someone else) has said something remarkable that is worth quoting.

A forum, though, is like a conversation and I've always found it un-natural when people don't really "talk" but, in essence, hand you a piece of paper to read and say: "Here is my response."

I've also noticed on some threads that some people quote some former luminaries but it really doesn't fit the situation.

That all said, I think there was a time in my theological studies that I thought theological study was to get to a point where I didn't really have to rely on somebody else to help guide me into the Truth. I used to think that the guys that knew Greek and Hebrew and Church History had it made. They'd be able to decide for themselves what was true and would even be in a position to find some groundbreaking theological insight that nobody in Church History had considered.

Honestly, it's not laziness on my part. I read every chance I get. I never listen to music but always have some MP3 playing. But my goals are different. But I've simply seen where the pursuit of novelty and "trying to make a theological mark" has led men (especially those in the Federal Vision).

I don't want you to think I'm biographically describing you Jacob. This is a general observation. I do wish that our society didn't instill us such an independent spirit and distrust of authority. No matter how much I try to argue for the reasons I've arrived at a conviction that pursuit of being Confessional is a more laudable goal than pursuing independent theological thinking, some will only see in that a belief that I've put the Confessions above the Scriptures. I simply don't see it that way but find that my pursuit of being Confessional is, in itself, a charge that Scripture has laid upon me.

I wish I could find where I read it once but one thing that marked Princeton for so many years was the fact that, while the theological world around it was pursuing novel theologies, it held the line and kept teaching the same tired old Reformed theology. I have no doubt that if Hodge or Warfield had desired to "make a mark" they could have received all the laurels that the world could lay upon them. They were brilliant men but they kept teaching the same old theology.

The only "mark" I desire for any teaching capacity I have in the future will be to keep repeating the same old theology that has been Confessed for centuries. If that makes me boring or unimaginative then I can live with that.

 

[bookslover]

If Scriptures are "the first and last court of appeal" then I see no reason for having a statement of faith.

Precisely. Even the Confession itself says that the Scriptures alone are the final court of appeal. And the Confession itself admits that it can be wrong.

The problem is that I've run across people who hold the Confession in higher regard than the Confession holds itself. Some people try to import the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" into the secondary standards, applying those terms to those documents. I'm sure the Westminster divines themselves would be shocked by this. Those terms are to be applied, of course, only to the Scriptures.

The standards are nice summaries of Bible doctrine - a handy-dandy way of looking up a quick summary of doctrine. They aren't any less than that, but they aren't any more than that, either. They are useful - like the appendix to a book is useful.

I ran across this interesting statement lately. It's by Andrew A. Bonar, the 19th-century author and editor. It appears on page 28 of his introduction to the Banner of Truth edition of Samuel Rutherford's letters: the orthodox have too often rested in the statements of our catechisms and confessions. Again: precisely.

 

[MW]

I ran across this interesting statement lately. It's by Andrew A. Bonar, the 19th-century author and editor. It appears on page 28 of his introduction to the Banner of Truth edition of Samuel Rutherford's letters: the orthodox have too often rested in the statements of our catechisms and confessions. Again: precisely.

Good quotation, wrong context. Bonar is highlighting the problem of resting in the catechisms and confessions as "speculative truth," that is, divorced from the experiential power of the truth on the heart. His comment assumes the truth of these formularies.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel,

There is a difference between the definition of the True Church and the Visible Church. The early reformers as well as the later reformers would agree that the RC is a false church but is within the visible church.

Thanks for pointing this out Wayne; I disagree with the Reformers that a false church is within the visible church, to me it is a synagogue of Satan and therefore not, in any sense, part of the visible church of Jesus Christ on earth.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

For anyone interested in reading anything more along the lines of this thread, here is a post I wrote a while back called A Quote From the Puritans is an end to all Controversy

 

[Civbert]

Precisely. Even the Confession itself says that the Scriptures alone are the final court of appeal. And the Confession itself admits that it can be wrong.

And no one disagrees that Scripture is the final court of appeal. But it is not necessarily the first place we need to look to. The Confession of Faith is supposed to be what we believe the Bible actually teaches us.

So when a question comes up, then we look to the Confession. If it is answer is contrary to the Confession, we don't say "oh well, maybe the confession is false". If we were to do that, then why would one call is a confession of faith. If it is contrary to the Confession, and we believe the Confession has faithfully conveyed the teachings of Scripture, then one need go no further. The only reason to go further is if the area is one you are unsure that the Confessions is correct about, or an area the Confession does not clearly address.

To be clear, I'm not talking about issues that the confessions don't address, or the interpretation of Scripture. We do not interpret the Bible from the Confessions - but we do check our interpretations with interpretations of other areas of Scripture. And the Confessions are (in part) a summary of what we consider the correct interpretation.

The problem is that I've run across people who hold the Confession in higher regard than the Confession holds itself. Some people try to import the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" into the secondary standards, applying those terms to those documents. I'm sure the Westminster divines themselves would be shocked by this. Those terms are to be applied, of course, only to the Scriptures.

I don't know who these people are you speak of. If they actually say this, then you should correct them immediately. But if this is merely an impression you've gotten from them, then maybe you should ask them to clarify their positions. It's wrong for you to hang on to any low thoughts against your brother if they are based merely on impressions and not what he as actually said to you most clearly.

The standards are nice summaries of Bible doctrine - a handy-dandy way of looking up a quick summary of doctrine. They aren't any less than that, but they aren't any more than that, either. They are useful - like the appendix to a book is useful.

They are much more than a mere summery. They also clarify the teachings of Scripture and show how they work together. You can not simply summarize from Scripture the Doctrine of the Trinity. But we confess that the Godhead is one in substance and three in person. There are many doctrines in the WCF that are not simple summaries of the Scriptures.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Good post Anthony.

I agree. The fact that the Scriptures are supposed to be appealed to authoritatively is on the basis of primacy of authority as the infallible fount from which the Church forms her doctrines. It doesn't mean that if my son asks me if stealing is wrong that I tell him to read the Scriptures and find out for himself or that, when I tell him it is wrong, he says that he'll have to check that out from the Scriptures before he believes what I'm saying is true about them.

These arguments for going to the Scriptures first always ignore the community of faith that we find ourselves within. It assumes that each of us is merely making our own minds up about what the Word is and, by voluntary association, choosing the Church of people that agrees with more things we've determined autonomously from the Word than they disagree.

Once again, the question is never whether we'll have an infallible confession or a fallible confession of doctrines. The question is whether we ascribe to ourselves the authority to make the fallible confession or the Church.