Witherspoon and the American Presbyterians solved the problem by revising the confession – a move that incurred the wrath of Reformed Presbyterians and their latter-day supporters like Gary North. The Scottish denominations in the later 19thC left the confession as it stood, but declared their rejection of ‘persecuting principles’ in new subscription formulae. Both moves were decried by some as betrayals of the Confession, but most argued (like Scott Clark) that they were ironing out inconsistencies in the Confession, and following through on the anti-Erastian logic of their tradition (not an argument that would have impressed Samuel Rutherford et al…)

The history suggests that the Confession wasn’t a house of cards (or a row of dominoes) – one could easily reject/revise 20.4 and 23.3 and leave the rest of the Confession safely intact. But I agree with you that the story highlights the provisionality of human judgement.

The comment about ‘Reformed’ was rather hastily-phrased. What I meant to say was that the only proper Reformed response to a question about the source for theological truth is ‘Scripture alone’. Clearly, in historical or ecclesial terms, the symbols define the meaning of ‘Reformed,’ but it seems to me that a statement like ‘The WCF says it; therefore it is true’ is necessarily wrong, from a Reformed perspective.

You might be right about the American revisions–I’m a Baptist; I prefer them to the original (I tend to think that the amendments about the pope and the salvation of infants are positive as well). The fact that there are multiple American revisions might suggest that the earlier ones, at least, were not felt to be wholly happy by at least some, though.

As to revisions–it is a position I tripped over when reading up on the history, and felt a certain attraction towards; no more than that. If our confessional standards consisted of the work of a founding synod, and a series of revising statements acknowledging that we had now recognised that this or that article was phrased infelicitously, or was just plain wrong, it might encourage a better awareness of the provisionality of all human judgement. An idle thought, no more.

The anima imponentis point is a very important one–thanks for highlighting it.

Steve

So far as I know our board has never adopted a specific version of the WCF. The version posted on the website has no official status as an endorsement of a particular edition. I believe that this version was simply selected by the webmaster for use on the site. It’s true that our founders were American Presbyterians and I guess that they assumed the American revisions of the WCF. Fortunately most of our founding members (at WSC) are still alive and I can ask them if they ever discussed which edition they intended to adopt.

I would be interested to see a more complete explanation of your claim that using the Reformed confessions to define the adjective “Reformed” is rubbish.

As to the logical coherence of the American revisions, could it be that there was an underlying tension between the theocratic views of the 16th- and 17th-century revisions and their doctrine of two kingdoms, which tension the Americans relieved? Could it be that the American revisions achieved genuine stability rather than creating instability? We’ve lived quite a long time with those revisions and they have served us well.

Finally, as to revising the work of a synod, I’m not sure what you mean. Reformed synods have often done that. The early Dutch Reformed synods read the Belgic Confession when they met and asked if there were any revisions to be made. I think this would be a good practice today. In some cases it might be the only time the confession was read all year.

Confessions are received and adopted by ecclesiastical bodies. There is a reciprocal relation between the confession and the bodies adopting it (animus imponentis. For example, the American Presbyterians have not received the WCF to require the “in the space of six days” be understood to be six twenty-four hour days, even though it’s likely that many of the divines probably assumed that understanding.

Thanks for a stimulating post.