Isn't that very interesting? Because the cults and Romanism come under Lloyd-Jones critical eye, thus equating them, in principle he is also condemning all those churches that insist on an interpretative authority outside the Scriptures, which are obviously deemed to be insufficient in all matters of faith and practice.
Where does that leave the Presbyterian family of churches - the orthodox ones, I mean - who insist that both teaching and ruling elders, in addition to accepting the teaching of the Scriptures, subscribe the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) as a true summary of what they believe, accepting them as subordinate standards? Are the Scriptures insufficient in any reformed church? Calvin, in Geneva, had many enemies of the Gospel to contend with, yet he confronted them without any Confession to hide behind; he used the expounded and applied Scriptures to refute all his enemies.
I found it very sad and depressing to hear one senior minister within the Presbyterian family saying that he is trying to tie all ministers more closely to the WCF than they are at present. He was confessing much more than he realised, because for this minister, the Scriptures were no longer the Supreme standard of his denomination, but the WCF! I thought it would be a much more Christian thing, and a much more reformed thing, to tie all ministers more closely to the Bible, to the Gospel, than to any manmade document; but no. This is not the way senior ministers see it. They see the WCF as the acme of all theological confession writing, and the one that ought to bind men's consciences. So Luther's statement that his conscience was "captive to the Word of God" no longer applies in some reformed churches.
The point remains, does it not, that those who insist on ministers interpreting the Scriptures according to a manmade document, the WCF, however, good
and excellent it might be, have fallen into precisely the same trap as the cults and of Roman Catholicism, both of which they oppose.
Also, the fact that such churches have had subscription for centuries now has not ensured that all ministers, and ruling elder, believe and practice the same things. DMLJ calls this a 'paper confession,' and he's surely correct. As long as teaching and ruling elders subscribe this document, it matters not what they believe thereafter. And the reality is that there is such a variety of teaching and beliefs within these churches that it is becoming extremely difficult to understand just what subscription means, if anything! As it stand today, it means precious little. But because it is a treasured relic of the past, its position must be maintained at all costs.
It is surely time for church leaders to waken up and assess in detail what is going on within their churches. One minister does not believe in conversionism, or in being born again and being saved, whereas some other believe that very thing. Yet both subscribed the WCF. One group believes that Roman Catholicism is a Christian church, while others believe the opposite, yet both subscribed the WCF. That there is deep dishonesty within the churches is evident beyond dispute.
Church leader, wake up! Confessional correctness is not enough! Your responsibility is to find out what is!
A good article which makes a point of fundamental importance, namely do we need any 'confession of faith' at all? I suggest the WCF should be dispensed with entirley as for all practical purposes a 17th centurey confessional document cannot serve for today. Why dispense with it?
ReplyDelete1. There cannot be two competing sources of authority in the church, one a man-made confession, be it never so otrhodox. You are right in that it touches on the sufficency of Scripture.
2. Truth cannot be reduced to adequate expression in a 'confession'. It is therefore a poor substitute, for whilst truth never changes, our understanding of it does (or should!)
3. It is Scripture alone which is authoritative in the church and to which appeal must be made in all matters of faith and doctrine.
Like many other doctrines and practices within the modern church, such as the artificial 'clergy/laity' division, the imposed "sermon" event each week, the closed system of the "worship service", the suppression of a functioning priesthood of all believers when gathered, and many more, the WCF should be abandoned as a formal church confession.
Thank you so much, Graham, for your response. These are truly fundamental matters that the church has to address, and as a metter of urgency. It is not that the WCF is a 17th century document that is the real issue; it is, rather, that it is being elevated, by reformed evangelicals, to a level on a par with the supreme authority of Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, thus undermining it sufficiency as such a rule. This, I think, is serious, and ought to be re-visited by those churches that hold to Westminster theology.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the WCF is good and sound and true to the Bible's teaching. However the issue for me is the influence of medieval scholasticism in the wording of the WCF, especially Chap.8 "On the Mediator," where no cognisance is given to the fact that God's revealed will is to 'take away the sion of the world' through the sacrifice on Calvary of His only Son, the Lord Jesus christ, the Saviour of the world.
This represents a departure from the teaching of John Calvin (1509-1564), Baxter, Davenant, Bellamy, Doddridge, Edwards, McCheyne, Ryle, not to mention the Canons of Dhort and the Heidelberg Catechism. These latter historical documents are much closer to Calvin and the Scriptures than is WCF. But to be fair to the WCF denominations, they still hold, in theolory at least, to the Scruiptures as the final court of appeal in all matters of controversy.