some notes on confessional subscription

R S Clark http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/more-on-bible-and-confession/

Someone who teaches at a presbyterian seminary such as WTS/P and has taken an oath that he believes the Westminster standards should teach presbyterian theology.

L Irons http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=149

argues that WTS/P calls teachers to adhere to the system contained in the Westminster Standards. This permits acceptance of a diverse collection of details over whch people will differ, while at the same time accepting the system. (examples – essential to the system? covenant theology. details? view of the Sabbath, creation days).

R S Clark http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/even-more-on-bible-and-confession/

The problem with Lee Irons’ view is: who gets to describe what is essential to the syatem and what is not? It is a recipe for anarchy. We are called to confess these confessions, not be “sympathetically critical” as we might be to an author of a systematic theology.

L Irons http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=150

Irons argues that Hodge, Warfield, Machen did not hold to the view that Clark does. Nor did Kline while at WSCal. We must hold to the system, while allowing the freedom that an individual’s study of scripture takes him.

R S Clark http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/confession-and-repristination/

Notes there is much that we have learned since the 17th century but there is much we need to relearn from then. The original intent of the writers of the confession is very important to avoid subjectivism. Critical of Hodge et al.

Matt Morgan http://beritolam.blogspot.com/2008/03/confessional-subscriptionredux.html

The tradition is not quite so clear on the question of subscription. The North American Presbyterians permitted limited subscription to “all essential and necessary articles” of the Confession of Faith and catechisms. (Adopting Act of 1729.)

Definitions – quote from Hodge:

Every minister at his ordination is required to declare that he adopts the Westminster Confession and Catechism, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the sacred Scriptures. There are three ways in which these words have been, and still are, interpreted. First, some understand them to mean that every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith is included in the profession made at ordination. Secondly, others say that they mean just what the words import. What is adopted is the ‘system of doctrine.’ The system of the Reformed Churches is a known and admitted scheme of doctrine, and that scheme, nothing more or less, we profess to adopt. The third view of the subject is, that by the system of doctrine contained in the Confession is meant the essential doctrines of Christianity and nothing more. (Discussions in Church Polity, 1878, p.335-36)

Some argue that the second and third are two shades of the same grey. The Princeton theologians held to the second but not the third. Morgan argues that this is a rational position and should not be dismissed because some want to make it similar to the third.

Historically it cannot be proved that strict subscription makes for a more unified church.

Machen quote:

Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church of America [e.g. the precursor to the OPC] is not to every word in those Standards, but only to the system of doctrine which the Standards contain. (The Presbyterian Guardian, October 1936, pg. 45)

The problem with strict subscription [if indeed that means 'every word'] is that it elevates the confessions to plenary status alongside scripture. Morgan points out WCF 31.4 which allows for the fact that councils and assemblies err.

A test case if the Belgic Confession Art.4  which says that Hebrews was one of Paul’s letters. Few in URCNA believe this. So system subscription is in operation!

Scripture is the rule of faith. The confessions are a guide.

L Irons http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=151

Agrees with Morgan.

L Keister http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/different-kinds-of-confessional-subscription/

Keister lists the views on subscription:

• strict
• good faith
• loose

They seem to correspond with Hodge’s three.

Queen’s Cross: nightmare or birth of a dream?

Calvinism and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: Queen’s Cross: nightmare or birth of a dream?.

suggests that the time has come for a single reformed denomination and that the FCS could be it. However the problems are

• worship – is EP a deal breaker?
• women’s ordination – the FCS will not move
• confessional subscription

Institutes I.I.II

The reverse is also true. Without a true knowledge of God man cannot truly know himself. Failure to truly know God allows hypocrisy to persist.

II.II Of the Covenant between God the Father and the Son

I. Two things must be considered: first, the covenant between the Father and the mediator, the Son; second, the ‘testamentary disposition’ by which God bestows eternal salvation.

II. The compact consists of the Father’s demand of obedience of the Son, even to death, and promising him the name above every name of the elect.

III. Christ speaks of this in Luke 22:29 (SND – though the ESV, NIV, AV or NKJV translate it the way that Witsius translates it. It depends on the translation of diatithemai. )

IV. Heb 7:22 – “This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.” He is the guarantor in the sense that he guarantees the fulfilment of the condition of the covenant of grace. Only secondarily, having achieved that, does he guarantee the Father to us, and guarantees that he “engages for us, that we should obey”. (SND – not sure what this last bit really means! Progressive holiness?)

V. Galatians 3:16,17. The promises were made to Christ, not just through Christ to us, or, worse, to us without Christ.

VI. Some explicit mentions of the surety of Christ:

Psa 119:122 – (SND – not obvious to me!)

Isa 38:14 – (SND – Better, though is this a pledge to God by the Lord (kurios)?)

Jer 30:21 – speaks of the Prince of the people approaching the LORD, pledging his heart, for the sake of the sins of the people.

VII. Zec 6:13 – the counsel of peace between the LORD and the Branch.

VIII. Two objections to Zec 6:13: First, the two are not Father and Son. Rather it is the Jews and the Gentiles. However this does not fit the context.

Second objection: the verse is in the future not in the past. But, Hebrew often mixes the tenses. Even if the future is insisted, there will be a manifest execution of the counsel.

IX. In the Psalms, Christ calls God the Father his God. This is a sign that they are in covenant. “I will be your God.” It makes him a servant of God. It indicates a compact of obedience and reward.

X. The substance of the covenant: First on the part of the Father…

1. Parties: Father and Son
2. Law: Jn 10:18, Jn 12:49
3. Promise: he shall see his seed Isa 53:10-12, Isa 49:6-8
4. Right to ask reward: Ps 2:8

On the part of the Son…

1. submit to the law: Ps 40:7-9, Jn 14:31
2. performace of requirements: Gal 4:4, Jn 15:10, Jn 8:29, Jn 19:30 (“it is finished”)
3. claim of reward: Jn 17:4,5

XI. Christ’s use of the sacraments sign and seal this covenant.

XII. There are those who imagine that Ps 16:2 is God the Father speaking to the Son and accepting him. (SND – Aquinas?) The interpretation hinges on the preposition “al” which those who take this view take to mean “upon”.

XIII. This is strained! It is clearly the Son speaking a monologue and is addressing the Father.

XIV. Christ is meditating in Ps 16:2 and is speaking to his Father saying that he can add nothing to the Father’s goodness by fulfilling his work. IOW hebrew “al” signifies “to”.

XV. (Commentary on his manner of interacting with others.)

XVI. The pact between Father and Son is not a new invention, but is seen in some of the ancient writers.

II.I Introduction to the Covenant of Grace – Witsius

I. When man sinned he gave himself up to slavery under the devil. Even though he had no right to do this, Gad gave him over to that end.

II. Man was without hope in the world.

III. According to the riches of his wisdom, God set up a covenant of grace.

IV. It holds out a greater hope not based upon our works, but upon Christ’s works.

V. Definition of the covenant of grace:

The covenant of grace is a compact or agreement between God and the elect sinner; God on his part declaring his free good-will concerning eternal salvation, and every thing relative thereto, freely to be given to those in covenant, by, and for the mediator Christ; and man on his part consenting to that good-will by a sincere faith. – p.165

Imputation of Adam’s Sin

Notes from Witsius’ Economy of the Covenants

I.VIII.XXX Upon Adam’s fall, all mankind is deemed to have fallen. (Rom 5:12)

I.VIII.XXXI Four points:

• 5:12 speaks of an act of sinning.
• All have sinned, though it may not be a personal sin. Adam’s sin is imputed.
• Indeed, it is not personal sin otherwise there would be no need mention Adam.
• Paul’s intention is to show how Christ brings about righteousness for the covenant people.

The Fall and God’s Decree.

Notes from Witsius’ Economy of the Covenants

I.VIII.X The fall was foreknown from eternity, as was evident from 1 Peter 1:19-20. Similarly Acts 2:23. He, as Lamb, was forknown before the foundation of the earth. Hence the fall was known.

I.VIII.XI Since he knew he also predetermined since one can’t separate God’s foreknowledge from his decree.

I.VIII.XII Since God has decreed it, the fall must happen inevitably. God cannot issue a decree that cannot stand.

I.VIII.XIII This also follows from the natures of Creator and Creature. Creatures depend on God. This includes natural actions and moral content of those actions. Therefore the action of the man in reasoning, willing and eating yet without moral goodness, is by God’s influence.

I.VIII.XIV The apparent harshness can be removed by following arguments.

I.VIII.XV First, there is only one first cause. See Acts 17:28.

I.VIII.XVI If this were not so, there would other first principles. If the human will were free, it be such a first principle.

I.VIII.XVII But the nature of a first principle is to be self-existent, which man is not. Therefore he cannot be a first cause.

I.VIII.XVIII God does not only concur but influences the causes when they act.

I.VIII.XIX A second cause cannot act unless first acted upon. God’s concurrence is not indifferent and so requiring co-operation to be effective. A staff does not shake its carrier.

I.VIII.XX Such dependency is not approptriate to God, “an infinite and most perfect cause”.

I.VIII.XXI Second causes would then become first causes.

I.VIII.XXII Creatures are determined to actions in which there is moral evil inherent.

I.VIII.XXIII ANd when God so determines, then they must act. If not, i.e. that the created will did not act according to God, then it would deny the efficacy of God’s acting. It would be independent.

I.VIII.XXIV Moral goodness is a superior entity to a physical entity (actions in their physical essence). But this too is dependent on the acting of God.

I.VIII.XXV Thus Adam could not but understand, will and eat. And since God did not give goodness to those actions, Adam could not do this in a right manner.

I.VIII.XXVI This does not imply he did not have the ability to obey. Man is gifted with sufficient powers to overcome temptation. Yet his actions are dependent on the Creator.

I.VIII.XXVII God guarantees the liberty of man’s will and judgement. It is founded upon his decree.

I.VIII.XXVIII God is not the author of sin. Man is given the power to avoid it. Yet he infallibly decrees the actions of sin without the moral goodness. This hard to reconcile and must wait for the world to come.

I.VIII.XXIX It is in the wisdom of God not only to do good, but to make the evil that men do answer a good end.

4.1.6 Meaning and Limits of the Ministry

1. God promises benefits from preaching because he joins his spirit to it. So he commands in many places that men engage in preaching in order to bear fruit – Lu 1:17, Jo 15:16, 1 Pe 1:23, 1 Co 4:15, Ga 3:2.
2. Yet God claims for himself the beginnings of faith and its maturing. Col 1:29, Ga 2:8

The Current Justification Controversy – O Palmer Robertson

The controversy started with Shepherd saying that works were a way of salvation, and treated as an instrument. Works were seen as the other side of the coin of faith. He referred to James 2:24 in defence. (Reformers would see ‘justification’ as demostrative, not declarative.)

Main points of the 1976 paper, “The Relation of Good Works to Justification in the Westminster Standards”:
1) Not only faith, but also concrete actions of repentance are necessary as the way of justification
2) In addition, works that take time, including the diligent use of the outward means of grace are necessary for justification.
3) Good works are necessary to maintain a person in the state of justification.
4) The call of the gospel message for obedience is not different from the call for faith.

Allegations from the commission(pp. 56ff):
1) Shepherd’s presentation of his views are confusing and will be misunderstood.
2) Shepherd’s view of the covenant is erroneous since it leads to the idea the elect can become reprobate.
3) Shepherd’s original view that works were an instrument of justification were erroneous and had not been repudiated.

‘Problematics in Shepherds Views’ given in the Seminary’s defence of Shepherd’s dismissal:
1) The confessional emphasis on faith as the alone instrument in justification is muted.
2) Shepherd rejects the Covenant of works and any place for merit for Adam. He makes faithful obedience the condition of all covenants. This rejects the westmister structure.
3) This covenantal dynamic changes the doctrine of assurance, ignoring the inner witness of the Spirit.

Possible causes of the controversy:
1) Shepherd was misunderstood. But there was extensive and intensive study!
2) Shepherd represented a strand within the Reformed tradition not reflected in the Seminary. However, it is difficult to see the differences over the doctrine of justification in the presbyterian and reformed confessions.
3) Personality conflict. Not likely.

Palmer concludes that the differences were over the substance of his views.

Summary of Shepherd’s formulations:
1) justification has been seen through the Roman legal model and this is inadequate. It must be seen in terms of covenant. It must not be reduced to a legalistic courtroom.
2) Election is seen through the static model of God’s unchanging decrees. Instead it must be seen through covenant.
3) Church membership and the sacraments must define genuine position and experience in the covenant of grace.
4) Faith and its benefits cannot be abstracted from one another. The way of faith is the way of obedience and vice versa.

Categories: RobertsonOP, ShepherdN, Justification

Horne – The Call of Grace

Mark Horne’s Review of The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation & Evangelism

The Call of grace is an excellent introduction to Covenant Theology. Most often it appears in the PCA as a part of a rationale for infant baptism, but little else.

The book cuts the Gordian knot between legalism and antinomianism.

The book assumes much – doctrine of the decrees, prevenient and invincible grace, and justification by faith alone.

There are many shrill slanders against this book. But he is completely in accord with the standards.

Shepherd wants pastors to be able to assure congregations that they are members of Christ, as Paul (1 Cor.1:4-9; 12:27). But Paul has warnings: (10:14-22; 15:2).

The standards show the necessity of 1) faith 2) repentance 3) the right use of the means (word, baptism, supper).

Categories: HorneM, ShepherdN, TheCall