Discussion of the Westminster Confession

[Robert R. Higby]

The purpose of this thread will be to discuss the studies on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

[Eileen]

Bob,

What a great historical study this is, thank you for it! I think we must all be willing to look at what men have concluded in times past and even today knowing that all men are fallible.

I am wondering if there is any type of written documentation on any of these confessions that give the history on the ‘inside’ story so to speak. I can’t imagine in the writing of them that there weren’t disagreements amongst them, especially regarding the role of God in the creation of sin. Do you know of anything like that in writing that we could read?

Thanks!
Eileen~

[wildboar]

Eileen:

There is a project currently underway to make all the minutes of the Westminster Assembly and other background material available to the general public. http://www.westminsterassembly.org/Frameset1.htm There are also numerous articles in theological journals out there that address specific doctrinal debates at the Westminster Assembly. It looks like its going to take awhile but should be well worth the effort. The more I look at various issues that were debated and read some of the writings of the time period I am more and more convinced that it must be viewed as a consensus document. Many of the statements are not as precise as they could be for good reason. They are intended to set up bumpers, not to teach things in a very narrow and precise way. There is room for differences on a number of issues. There are a variety of commentaries and certain ones are more helpful in determining original intent. Robert Shaw is probably the most helpful although. His view is not necessarily the only possible view on every point but he does fall within the bounds of orthodoxy set up by the WCF. The more modern commentaries tend to end up reading modern teachings into the confession.

[wildboar]

The judgment/justice of God comprises both grace and punishment in the biblical order of things. It is the very judgment and justification of God that brings about the redeeming work of Christ and salvation of the elect. These confessions of man that contrast justice and mercy as opposite attributes of God do not speak aright of his purposes and decree. To avoid a mass of confusion regarding the redemptive acts of God and their divinely inspired meaning, it is critically important that we use the language of scripture with the meaning and context of scripture itself.

All of the confessions warn against proposing God as the author of sin. If this is interpreted to mean that God does not cause and create evil for his own purposes, we must ignore such a warning as Platonic philosophical gobbledygook. In creating evil, God does not make an entity that reflects his own image, nature, or character. He does make an entity that is used in his decrees to bring glory to himself in the dual matter that has here been discussed.

One last issue needing evaluation from these confessions is the warning against teaching predestination to the lost. The Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism and Episcopal Irish Articles are explicit on this point, whereas the Westminster Confession deleted it entirely. We can be thankful that on this point the Assembly purged some completely unbiblical comments from the earlier creeds. Christ himself told the reprobates of his day that they would not believe because they were not of his predestined sheep. Our testimony to rebellious souls must equally teach that God hardens those predestined to damnation against believing the gospel of salvation. That is the truth. It is an aspect of the truth that God indeed may use as a part of awakening an elect soul who is yet in slumber. The making of certain persons jealous of God’s elect who have received grace is an important part of bringing those very persons to a faith that proves salvation!

I also agree that it is important to use the language of Scripture--which is the very reason why we should not use misleading language saying that God is the author of sin, God is a tyrant, or any other such nonsense.

Jesus said that people did not believe because they were not of his sheep but it was not to convert them. He was making a declarative statement and something that only God could know. It would not be right for me to go to an unbeliever and declare him a reprobate. The Gospel is Christ-centered. It is the work of Christ that God uses to bring people to salvation. It's not even clear that the Irish Articles are teaching what you think they are saying:


The godlike consideration of Predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their minds to high and heavenly things: as well because it doth greatly confirm and establish their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: and on the contrary side, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination is very dangerous.

I think it is speaking specifically of those who say that since God predestines or reprobates whomever he wishes they can do whatever they want. That seems to be group of people being addressed. The 39 Articles likewise say:



As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.


There is also some debate over whether or not Ussher was the author of the Irish Articles or not.

Eileen:

Here is a link to Shaw's commentary: http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/

[Eileen]

Eileen:

There is a project currently underway to make all the minutes of the Westminster Assembly and other background material available to the general public. http://www.westminsterassembly.org/Frameset1.htm There are also numerous articles in theological journals out there that address specific doctrinal debates at the Westminster Assembly. It looks like its going to take awhile but should be well worth the effort. The more I look at various issues that were debated and read some of the writings of the time period I am more and more convinced that it must be viewed as a consensus document. Many of the statements are not as precise as they could be for good reason. They are intended to set up bumpers, not to teach things in a very narrow and precise way. There is room for differences on a number of issues. There are a variety of commentaries and certain ones are more helpful in determining original intent. Robert Shaw is probably the most helpful although. His view is not necessarily the only possible view on every point but he does fall within the bounds of orthodoxy set up by the WCF. The more modern commentaries tend to end up reading modern teachings into the confession.

Thanks Chuck, I will research these sites out. I think it would be very interesting to know exactly what issues were debated and the range of thought that was there.

Eileen~

[Nicholas Heath]

I also agree that it is important to use the language of Scripture--which is the very reason why we should not use misleading language saying that God is the author of sin, God is a tyrant, or any other such nonsense.


I apologize for making a big deal out of this, but I find that offensive. The language of proclaiming "God is the author of sin" or "God is a tyrant" is only nonsense to non-christians! We would not have to come up with these little titles if one would just agree with "the Soveriegnty of God"! Pagans always do there best to affirm some sort of freedom to man, and still claim "God is soveriegn", but will always fail! I do not want to pick a fight, please do better than claiming "God is the author of sin" and "God is a tyrant" is nonsense! There is nothing wrong with either of those statements. To believe other wise is in fact "nonsensicalisherness".:) (made that word up all by my self:D )

[Greg Winegar]

I apologize for making a big deal out of this, but I find that offensive. The language of proclaiming "God is the author of sin" or "God is a tyrant" is only nonsense to non-christians! We would not have to come up with these little titles if one would just agree with "the Soveriegnty of God"! Pagans always do there best to affirm some sort of freedom to man, and still claim "God is soveriegn", but will always fail! I do not want to pick a fight, please do better than claiming "God is the author of sin" and "God is a tyrant" is nonsense! There is nothing wrong with either of those statements. To believe other wise is in fact "nonsensicalisherness".:) (made that word up all by my self:D )Nice word nick. ;)
I also agree that it is important to use the language of Scripture--which is the very reason why we should not use misleading language saying that God is the author of sin, God is a tyrant, or any other such nonsense.I do understand your comment here as far as the "God is a tyrant" statement, however I think if you go back to nick's post you would have to conclude that the point being made was that God is ultimately soverign and in control, not with any negetive assocciations that you are having a hang up with.

Why is making the statement that God is the author of sin nonsense and misleading?

My contention would be this:
That it is nonsense and misleading to say that the statement that "God is the author of sin" is nonsense and misleading.

Who then is the author of sin?

[Brandan Kraft]

Nice word nick. ;)I do understand your comment here as far as the "God is a tyrant" statement, however I think if you go back to nick's post you would have to conclude that the point being made was that God is ultimately soverign and in control, not with any negetive assocciations that you are having a hang up with.

Why is making the statement that God is the author of sin nonsense and misleading?

My contention would be this:
That it is nonsense and misleading to say that the statement that "God is the author of sin" is nonsense and misleading.

Who then is the author of sin?The whole phrase "author of sin" is ridiculous anyway! Not once is it found in Scripture. I myself do not use it, but I at least understand the brethren on here when they use it that they do not believe God is evil! Charles is deliberately misrepresenting the position of those on this forum.

[Brandan Kraft]

OK, everyone, this discussion is about the WCF - if you have a beef with Charles (which is certainly justifiable), then create a new thread. Thanks.

[GraceAmbassador]

The whole phrase "author of sin" is ridiculous anyway! Not once is it found in Scripture.

Thanks Brandan! I thought we had settled this question in another thread.

Also, although I am in disagreement with Charles most of the time, it is unfair return his misrepresentation of our position misrepresenting his; I believe this is what he said:


Originally Posted by WB
I also agree that it is important to use the language of Scripture--which is the very reason why we should not use misleading language saying that God is the author of sin, God is a tyrant, or any other such nonsense.


Note the "not found in scripture" from W.B. with the "not once found in scripture" from D.G. Comapre also the "nonsense" from W.B. to the "ridiculous" from D.G. I see a fundamental agreement here if words are taken at face value.

I can't remember the thread, but a few of us agreed that the term "author of sin" is inadequate to say the least.

I find that all over the Internet Forums, people who insist in using the term, do it as an enabler of their own lifestyle as if justifying deviances by saying that they are as they are because God so determined. That is the same argument that openly gay people present to justify their live style. This makes not only God the ridiculous "author of their sin" but also God responsible for their sins. I believe to be the responsibility of mature Christians (whatever that means) not to be themselves the "enablers" of this crowd. That is not said to imply that this is what is going on here, but it is healthy to beware of this tendency among novice so called "Calvinists".

The Good News of the Gospel is that God provided not only a sacrifice to wash away our sins and atone for them, but also to DELIVER US from them. So God is the Author of Salvation. God is Sovereign over sin to deliver his elect from it; Jesus is the AUTHOR and the finisher of our faith. You will find these terms somehow in the Bible, whether directly or indirectly. Let us use them!

Thanks,

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

When I have a moment, I will look up and quote once again what was posted multiple times before here--the statement from Plato's Republic where the "Author of Sin" term was conceived. The original notion of debating it in THOSE terms comes from Plato and no-one else.

The minutes of the debate of the Westminster Assembly were recorded. As I have been informed, there are copies of these minutes available at a few of the most major seminaries in the United States (Trinity, Fuller, and a few others). Some of the essential issues that were debated are evaluated in Schaff's Creeds of Christendom.