Strict Subscription vs. No Subscription
There is an interesting discussion about strict subscription that should be commented upon. Rev. Meyers shows his opposition to strict subscription by quoting James Jordan. Jordan argues that the system of doctrine in the Westminster has little to do with the details of the Confession.
Well, of course there is a "system" in the Standards, but the question is how detailed that system is. To say that there is a general system though many details in the Standards are not necessarily bound into that system, is quite different from saying that the Standards form a system that is tightly locked down in every detail.
What Rev. Jordan means by detail is 'word' or 'thought'. The system of the Westminster is not to be bound in every word or thought of the Confession. The System is something much broader. Thankfully, Rev. Jordan supplies an example.
For instance, we hear today that the “covenant of works” notion is an integral part of the Westminster Standards’ theology, and that departing from it is a departure from the Standards. Not so. The Westminster documents also use the phrase “covenant of life.” The “system” is that there are two stages of human life, a first stage with Adam and a second stage with the New Adam.
Here Rev. Jordan explains that even though the Westminster speaks of a covenant of works and a covenant of life the "system" of the Westminster only means two stages. The entire idea of covenant is thrown out the window as if it were some extraneous abstract idea that has no meaning.
Which brings us to the idea of strict subscription. Is it still subscription when one does not believe the words of the document are important. It seems to me that ‘Good Faith’ or ‘Loose’ subscription is really just interjecting Neo-orthodoxy into Confessional readings. The debate is between the ‘Confession is the system’ and the ‘the Confession contains the system’. Jordan, the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network, and others argue for the Neo-Orthodox Confessional reading. These men want to be subscribers to the Confession, but only if they can ‘demythologize’ it first. Strip it of its silly old notions and replace them with the new enlightened ones. Once we allow this into our churches (as the PCA already has) then no Scriptural truth is safe.
3 Comments:
Barthianism? Neo-Orthodox? You have not even tried to offer an argument for these incredible slanders.
May God remember and reward your zeal.
Fred,
I was not setting out in the post to provide a defense of the Covenant of Works, I used the example Jordan provided in his essay. It was meant to be illustrative of how a system unlinked to words operates. However, I can see how one would want a defense of it, so the next post shall be about the Covenant of Works. I look forward to you interaction with the next post.
As for seeing development in its worst light without reason, I believe you are mistaken. I have tried to post several times on how Development Theory does not fit with the facts of history (ie. Saying the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist prior to Nicaea, etc.). But, I think you will agree, this is a hard medium for such a lengthy discussion of historiography. In future I shall strive to show what I believe are shortcoming in the theory. For now it should suffice to say that no final synthesis has ever appeared, no matter what school of Development one follows. Schaff and Nevin expected a combing of Romanism and Protestantism, which has still not happened. Karl Marx expected a downfall of capitalism and the rise of the Proletariat, but that is now on the ash heap of history. And Hegel himself could not usher in the final stage of enlightenment with Philosophy as the great final synthesis. In fact, Hegel changed his own view before his death from his great works of Phenomenology of the Spirit (Mind). His later works showed that he now expected a final synthesis between the Religion and Philosophy. By the way, that too has not happened. Developmentalists are always compartmentalizing the past in ways that do not stand up to scrutiny, and looking for a new stage that never arrives. These are fairly big holes in the theory, and should constitute a reason for me rejecting it. I can get more specific if you wish.
Fred,
Before I get into the Rich Young Ruler, I would like to point out an apparent contradiction in your thinking. You have said repeatedly that merit is left over Roman Catholicism, but yet you know tell us that the basis of the covenant is obedience, faithfulness, and keeping the demands of the covenant. So, the obvious question is how does your system not include merit?
The Rich Young Ruler from Matthew 19:16-26 is a good passage, but it does not support a Federal Vision position. Verse 17 is important to remember for here Christ tells us that there is no one good, but God. This is the answer Christ has for the RYR when he asks, what must he do to have eternal life. Christ then lists the commandments except commandment 10, which the RYR thinks he keeps, and then Christ exposes his inability to keep Commandment 10, and with it all of the other commandments. The RYR leaves sad and upset because he now knows he will not inherit eternal life, and sees his sinfulness. It is a mistake to end the RYR passage at verse 22 for it is not over. Christ then tells people in verse 24 that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. The disciples’ respond appropriately by saying, “Who then can be saved?” For the disciples have just over heard everything. They stand convicted, they heard Christ say there is none good but God. Christ’s answer is telling, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Thus, man cannot enter heaven, only God’s grace gives entrance to the kingdom.
Now it seems to me that Fred’s contention is that Christ was being straightforward with RYR and thus one could do something to have eternal life, and to assume otherwise is to make Christ disingenuous. However, Christ fairly clearly states in the same passage that there is nothing that can be done to inherit eternal life. He does it by saying God alone is good in verse 17, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle in verse 24, and again in verse 26 by directly saying it is impossible for men, but only for God. The addition of the phrase Jesus "loved him" in Mark 10:21 does not change anything. It is not an unloving thing to expose the sin of one who is unrepentant. So, I fail to see the change this phrase brings.
Post a Comment