WCF 5.1-4

Chapter 5 - Of Providence

I. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold,(1) direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things,(2) from the greatest even to the least,(3) by His most wise and holy providence,(4) according to His infallible foreknowledge,(5) and the free immutable counsel of His own will,(6) to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.(7)

I. God, the great Creator of all things, does sustain,(1) direct and govern all creatures, actions and things;(2) from the greatest to the least, nothing is excluded.(3) This He does according to his most wise and holy providence,(4) according to His infallible foreknowledge(5) and the free immutable counsel of His will.(6) He does this to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness and mercy.(7)

Slight modifications here, but nothing substantial.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;(8) yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.(9)

II. Even though God is the first Cause and all things come to pass immutably, infallibly and according to His foreknowledge and decree;(8) yet by this same providence God has designed them to occur according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely or contingently.(9)

Again, little more than some rearranging and contemporizing. This section doesn't make much sense to me, especially sandwiched between the first and third sections. Whether or not things come to pass via second causes seems superfluous if (a) God is sustaining, directing and governing all things (presumably this includes second causes) and (b) God is free to work without, above and against these second causes.

III. God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means,(10) yet is free to work without,(11) above, (12) and against them, (13) at His pleasure.

III. God, in His providence, makes use of secondary causes;(10) yet He is free to work without,(11) above, and against them(13) as He sees fit.

Minor changes. I changed "means" to "secondary causes" because that seems to be the indirect implication and the direct application of what the Divines were setting forth. The proof texts of (9) and (10) appear to agree with my change in this regard.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men;(14) and that not by a bare permission,(15) but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,(16) and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends;(17) yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.(18)

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness of God which manifest themselves in His providence, which also extends over the first fall and over all other sins of angels and men.(14) This authority is not merely a permitting(15) of the first fall and all other sins of angels and men, but has joined with them a wise and powerful binding(16) so that they are ordered and governed by God, within redemptive history, to accomplish His own holy purposes.(17) However, the sinfulness of angels and men proceeds from themselves only and not from God, who is most holy and righteous in His being; neither is He, nor can He be, the author of sin and He cannot approve of it.(18)

Some hefty rewording and a little expanding in this section but I don't believe I've changed the content in any substantial way. I added "This authority... over the first fall and all other sins of angels and men" because I think it expresses a little more clearly what is going on in this part of the section, namely that God's providence is an exertion of His authority. I also changed "manifold dispensation" to "within redemptive history" because that's what it refers to and it is easier to understand worded this way.

WCF 4

Chapter 4 - Of Creation

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,(1) for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,(2) in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.(3)

I. In the beginning, God(1) was pleased, for the manifestation of His eternal power, wisdom and goodness,(2) to create all things visible and invisible from nothing. This He did in the space of six days and declared it all very good.(3)

A little rearranging and shortening. I removed "the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" because the footnote makes it clear all three were present. The Confession has already established the truth of the Trinity so I don't see a need to bog this first sentence down by making them explicit. I think this section could benefit from including a bit about how God created from nothing rather than leaving it simply at that He has created from nothing. I'm also not sure about the benefit of keeping "in the space of six days" given the current debates about the subject. Two spring immediately to mind for me: (1) the semantic range of the Hebrew word for "day" and (2) the literary genre/style of the creation account. There are other ontic and linguistic issues involved but these two generally seem to stand out above the rest. I might render the last sentence in this section this way: "This He did according to His will and declared it all very good." Such a rendering preserves the truth of the section without favoring a particular stance on the ontic and linguistic issues.

II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female,(4) with reasonable and immortal souls,(5) endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image,(6) having the law of God written in their hearts,(7) and power to fulfill it:(8) and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.(9) Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,(10) which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.(11)

II. After God had made all other creatures He created man, male and female.(4) He created them in His own image(6) giving them reasonable and immortal souls(5) endued with knowledge, righteousness and true holiness. They had the law of God written in their hearts(7) and were endowed with the power to obey.(8) Beside the law written in their hearts, they were given a command: do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.(10) Under this possibility of transgression they were left to the liberty of their own will which was subject to change.(9) While they kept this command they remained happy in their communion with God and had dominion over the rest of creation.(11)

I did a decent amount of moving around in this section as can be seen from incorrect order of the parenthetical numbers. Those numbers, remember, are the footnotes to the Scripture proofs in the original Confession so I have simply moved them along with their respective sentences. I think this ordering makes more sense and is more coherent. I changed "power to fulfill it" to "power to obey" because that's what is really being said and I think it should be made clear. I moved "Beside the law written..." to precede "Under this possibility of transgression..." because it flows better and increases the overall consistency of the section; I do not think this substantially affects the content. I also changed "had dominion over the creatures" to "had dominion over the rest of creation" because it wasn't just the fauna they were given. I have some issues with this section as well (surprise!) but the only one really worth mentioning is my concern over the phrase "giving them reasonable and immortal souls". I don't dispute that reason and the soul are linked but there should be qualifications about the supposed immortality. Since only God is self-sufficient it is, then, a mistake to describe the soul as immortal. However, this criticism only applies if we understand "immortal" to mean "imperishable" or "not subject to death/decay."

WCF 3.5-8

Chapter 3 - Of God's Eternal Decree (cont'd)

V. Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,(9) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto:(10) and all to the praise of His glorious grace.(11)

V. God has chosen, in Christ, those who are predestined to receive eternal life. His choosing was according to His eternal and immutable purpose and according to His good pleasure. Those chosen were predestined to everlasting glory(9) by God's free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, good works, perseverance or any other condition in the creature as motivation for His choosing.(10) All this was done so that the elect might praise His glorious grace.(11)

A little rearranging and a lot of cleaning. I think this arrangement makes more sense, is much easier to read and maintains the substance of the section. I removed "and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will" and shortened it simply to "according to His good pleasure" because the former is a cumbersome way of stating something that doesn't need stating. The secrecy of the mechanics of predestination are implicit in the doctrine and don't need to be explicitly affirmed.

VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the mans thereunto.(12) Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,(13) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,(14) and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.(15) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.(16)

VI. By His eternal and most free will, not only has God appointed the elect unto glory, He has also foreordained all the means to this end for them.(12) Those elected, being originally fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Jesus.(13) They are effectually called to faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit working in due season; they are justified, adopted, sanctified(14) and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.(15) Only those appointed by God are redeemed by Jesus.(16)

Once again, little more than cleaning. I added "originally" to tie the reason for being fallen in Adam back to his original sin in Eden. I removed the salutis language from the last sentence because it isn't necessary and it clutters up the section.

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.(17)

VII. According to His own will, by which He extends or withholds mercy, God was pleased to ordain the rest of mankind to dishonor and wrath for their sin. This He has done for His own glory and to the praise of His justice.(17)

I rearranged and shortened this section a little bit to make it easier to read.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,(18) that men, attending the will of God revealed in His word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.(19) So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;(20) and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.(21)

VIII. The doctrine of the mystery of predestination should be handled with special prudence and care.(18) Those who attend to the will of God, which is revealed in His word, and who yield obedience to it may be assured of their eternal election(19) from the certainty of their effectual calling. This doctrine should foster praise, reverence and admiration for God(20) while instilling humility, diligence and giving abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.(21)

Not much here. I changed "effectual vocation" to "effectual calling" because "vocation" carries the concept of "occupation" in today's culture. In this section it is used, instead, to refer to that particular step of redemption we see above in section VI. This is the only place in the Confession that "vocation" is used so I feel like changing it to "calling" makes it more consistent.

WCF 3.1-4

Chapter 3 - Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:(1) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(2) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.(3)

I. Before creation, God unchangeably ordained, in accordance with the counsel of his most wise and holy will, everything that happens.(1) This was done in such a manner as to ensure that God is not the author of sin,(2) nor is the will of the creature impugned. Furthermore, the contingency of second causes is not taken away in this act, rather it is established.(3)

Pretty straightforward. I changed "from all eternity" to "before creation" because that is the important point; there's no reason to involve the concept of eternity at this point. I also removed "liberty" from the last sentence on second causes because I think it is superfluous within the context of today's culture. On a more personal note, I'm not sure it's ontologically necessary (or even possible) to maintain the notion of God ordaining all things that happen while at the same time maintaining the notion that He is not the author of sin. The relationship between "ordain" and "author" is not clearly defined and I don't think discussions about the definitions and parameters of "cause-and-effect" are going to bring any solid answers. Also, I'm not entirely sold on the importance of preserving the "will of the creature" in this ordaining act of God either. At the very least we find in Scripture that man is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness; so what does it mean to refrain from impugning the will of the creature given this setting?

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,(4) yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.(5)

II. Even though God is omniscient,(4) He has not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future or because particular conditions were going to be met.(5)

All I have done here is shortened and modernized. I'm really sort of at a loss as to the function if this section. It seems quite illogical that God could foresee something that was not, beforehand, decreed. Thus, how could any decree be based on something foreseen? I'm not sure why this needs to be explicitly stated. An unnecessary confusion between foreknowledge and foresight can be avoided by rewording and simplifying this section even more: "The ordaining of all things that happen is not based on God's foreseeing what will happen, rather it is grounded in His perfect righteousness and in accordance with His will." On the other hand, I do not think this chapter, or the confession as a whole, would suffer any great or lesser loss if this section were removed completely.

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels(6) are predestined unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.(7)

III. For the manifestation of His glory, God has decreed that some men and angels(6) be predestined unto everlasting life; and others be predestined to everlasting death.(7)

A bit of rearranging, this section is quite straightforward. I haven't quite nailed down what substantial difference there is between "predestined" and "foreordained." Maybe there isn't a difference at all but then why not use "predestined" in place of "foreordained" in this section? At any rate, I changed "foreordained" to "predestined" for consistency.

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.(8)

IV. These angels and men, being so predestined, are certainly and specifically designated to their particular end, be it eternal life or eternal death. The number of those respectively designated is so definite that it cannot be increased or diminished.(8)

More cosmetics. I, again, have dropped "foreordained" in favor of using only "predestined" for consistency's sake.

Theological Insight in Strange Places

I was reading through an article in a recent issue of Wine Spectator and came across this quote from Thomas Kuhn: "You do not perceive something until you have the right metaphor to receive it." Of course the author doesn't cite a work and I am not familiar enough with his works to place it (though if I had to guess I would say it's from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions); but I thought the quote one of the most insightful sentences I've read in quite some time. My mind raced immediately to the truth of the gospel and how one cannot accept it apart from the gift of faith. I went from there to thinking that the operating metaphor which enables faith is grounded the reality of the incarnation: the word of God manifested in the person of Jesus. Unlike the majority of our conceptual metaphors, this is a metaphor that cannot be acquired via the carnal experience of the created order; nor can flesh and blood reveal it to us. Only through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is one able to receive the truth of the gospel.

WCF 2.1-3

This chapter needs a serious overhaul. First, I think the title should be changed to "Of God" or to "Of the Holy Trinity" or even to "Of God, the Holy Trinity". I also think the last section should be the first so that the doctrine of the Trinity is established as the context in which the rest of our understanding about God is couched. If it wasn't for the last section this chapter might as well advocate unitarianism. I think a restructuring of this section is necessary if only from a pedagogical standpoint for those new Christians who come to the Confession looking to solidify their understanding of God. The main problem with this chapter is that it attempts to describe and define God seemingly apart from the ontological truth/reality of the Trinity. Much theology has been written on this in recent centuries (some of it very good, from what I understand) since the formulation of the Confession and such work should probably be taken into account now. This chapter grates on my theological nerves and it isn't the content so much as it is the format in which that content is being displayed. This could be done much, much better.



Chapter 2 - Of God, and of the Holy Trinity


I. There is but one only,(1) living, and true God,(2) who is infinite in being and perfection,(3) a most pure spirit,(4) invisible,(5) without body, parts(6) or passions;(7) immutable,(8) immense,(9) eternal,(10) incomprehensible,(11) almighty,(12) most wise,(13) most holy,(14) most free,(15) most absolute;(16) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,(17) for His own glory;(18) most loving,(19) gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;(20) the rewarder of them that dilligently seek Him;(21) and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,(22) hating all sin,(23) and who will by no means clear the guilty.(24)

I. There is only one (1) living and true God.(2) He is infinite in being and perfection.(3) He is a spirit.(4) He is immutable,(8) immense (9) and without beginning or end;(10) He cannot be fully or completely comprehended.(11) God is almighty,(12) most wise,(13) most holy,(14) most free (15) and most absolute.(16) He works all things according to the council of His will (17) and for His own glory.(18) He is most loving,(19) gracious and merciful; He is abundant in goodness, truth and forgiveness.(20) He rewards those who dilligently seek Him (21) and He is most just in His judgments.(22) He hates all sin (23) and will not let the guilty go unpunished.(24)

I've left some things completely out and reworded a few others in this section. First thing that I've left out is "invisible, without body, parts or passions". I've removed "invisible" because it's almost redundant following "spirit" and because Paul says that God is clearly "seen" by all men, even if only in and through the created order. I've removed "without body, parts or passions" partly because it is also redundant following "spirit" but also because the section goes on to note several "passions" God does, in fact, have (e.g. love, graciousness, mercy, etc.). I changed "eternal" into "without beginning or end" to accommodate both those who believe God is outside of time and those who believe He is not. I've changed "incomprensible" to "cannot be fully or completely comprehended" because the former seems to create a picture of total ignorance on our part, as if we can have no knowledge of God at all. Everything else is, more or less, intact.

II. God hath all life,(25) glory,(26) goodness,(27) blessedness,(28) in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made,(29) nor deriving any glory from them,(30) but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things (31) and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.(32) In His sight all things are open and manifested,(33) His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,(34) so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.(35) He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.(36) To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.(37)

II. God has all life,(25) glory(26) and goodness(27) in and of Himself. He alone is all-sufficient and is in need of nothing but Himself.(29) Neither does He derive glory from His creation,(30) rather He manifests His own glory in and through it. He is the source of all being and nothing exists apart from His sustaining power.(31) God has complete sovereign dominion over all things so that He does to them that which is according to His will alone.(32) In His sight all things are open and made clear,(33) His knowledge is infinite, infallible and is not dependent upon anything.(34) There is nothing that is contingent or uncertain to God.(35) He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.(36) God alone is to be worshiped and obeyed by men, angels and all of creation in accordance with His stipulations as He sees fit to require.(37)

Here I've done little other than rearrange. I left out "blessedness" because I feel like it clutters more than it helps but everything else is basically the same. I don't like that the Confession, here, says that God does not derive glory from His creation because it seems like the Scriptures speak clearly to the contrary. God does not need to derive glory from us or from His creation, but that is different from saying that He doesn't derive glory from us or it at all. I will readily concede that the glory He receives from us and from creation is His own and not new or additional glory as if He can have more or as if we (or creation) could generate our own apart from Him (here the Confession is right). Even though it is His own glory that He receives from us and creation, it is from us and creation that He receives it and, thus, He does derive glory from us and His creation. In other words (and more simply), I think this is a contradiction that needs to be rectified.

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost:(38) the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;(39) the Holy Ghost is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. (40)

III. The unity of the Godhead consists of three persons in one substance, power and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.(38) The Father is of none, neither is He an only son, nor does He proceed from anything or anyone. The Son is eternally the only son of the Father.(39) The Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.(40)

I changed "Ghost" to "Spirit" simply because the word "ghost" seems archaic and, somehow, less accurate than "spirit" when describing the third person of the Trinity. Also, the word "begotten" is sort of tricky so I took the meaning of the Greek word monogenes which denotes "only child" in this context.

WCF 1.8-10

Continuing...

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(17) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(18) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(19) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(20) that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(21) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(22)

VIII. The original languages of Scripture, being primarily Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament), were immediately inspired by God. Through His singular care and providence they have been kept pure and authentic in all ages;(17) thus, in all controversies of religion, the Church is to appeal to Scripture as the final authority.(18) Because the original languages are not known to all of God's people, they are, therefore, to be translated into the native language of every nation.(19) God's people have a right, and an interest, to access the Scriptures in their own language so that, in the fear of God, they may read and search them as they have been commanded.(20) This is to be done so that the Word of God dwells plentifully in all, and that all may worship Him in an acceptable manner.(21) Also, through the patience and comfort wrought by the Scriptures, all may have hope.(22)

This section is a structural wreck in the original; I've tried to untangle it without losing any of the content. I don't see the need for the last couple sentences given that there's a chapter specifically dedicated to worship (chapter 21), but I also don't see any real harm in keeping it the way it is.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (23)

IX. The Scriptures do not speak with many voices, but with one voice. Therefore, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. When there is a question about the true and full sense of any passage, it must be searched and clarified by other places that speak more clearly. (23)

I pulled the parenthetical statement out and used it as the opening sentence for this section because I think it sets the important context for its content. While I am somewhat uncomfortable with the notion of an infallible rule of interpretation, I realize and recognize the essential truths of this section. If I was doing a complete overhaul of the Confession I might try and reword this section a bit. I am not questioning the inerrancy of Scripture, just our ability to rightly use an infallible rule of interpretation. After all, Christians are quite a theologically diverse people; even those of us who hold to the Confession.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.(24)

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be none other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. All the decrees of councils, opinions of ancient (and contemporary) writers, doctrines of men and private spirits are to be examined by this judge.(24)

Again, little more than structural work.

WCF 1.5-7

The larger chapters I will try and break into parts so the posts aren't super long. I neglected to say this in the introduction, but my goal here is not to redefine the Confession, nor is my goal to somehow "dumb it down" or water up its theology. My goal, rather, is to give it a new and fresh expression; perhaps to breathe some contemporary life into it. Let's say, as the analogy goes, that my desire is to put this great old wine into a new wineskin. Hopefully (and prayerfully) the flavor will not be adversely affected in the transition.


V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.(10) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(11)

V. We may be moved and inspired by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Scriptures.(10) The heavenliness of our experience, the efficacy of its doctrine, the majesty of its style, the coherence of all its parts, the historic scope and full disclosure it makes of the only way man can receive salvation (which gives all glory to God), the many other incomparable excellencies and the perfection thereof; these are all arguments which demonstrate the Scriptures to be the Word of God. Nevertheless, our full persuasion and assurance of this infallible truth, and of its divine authority, comes from the inward work of the Holy Spirit which bears witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(11)

Here again I have changed very little of substance (this will be a running theme, I really do like the majority of the Confession as it is).

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.(12) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:(13) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.(14)

VI. The expressed will of God concerning all things necessary for His glory, man's salvation, faith and life is clearly and plainly set forth in Scripture or can be deduced, by good and necessary consequence, from what is written in Scripture. Therefore no new revelations or traditions according to man may be added to the Scripture.(12) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit to be necessary for a saving understanding of what is revealed in the Word.(13) We acknowledge that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the governing of the Church, which can be ordered by common practices and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word which are always to be observed.(14)

Nothing significant here. I changed "by the light of nature" to "common practice" because that is basically what it means. G.I. Williamson says, "We are not at libert to modify the principle in any degree. But we are at liberty to work out the principle according to changes in circumstances."

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:(15) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(16).

VII. Everything in Scripture is not expressed as clearly as the gospel, nor can everything be understood as readily and clearly as the gospel.(15) However, those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation are clearly expressed throughout Scripture. The scholar and the layman alike are able to gain a suffient understanding of them through the use of the ordinary means.(16)

I've revamped this section a little bit to express some of the meaning that seemed implicit in the original. Since the previous section mentions the necessity of the illuminating work of Holy Spirit in coming to an understanding of salvation, I think adding something similar to this section would be beneficial. For example, the last sentence could be rendered "The scholar and the layman alike are able, through the Holy Spirit and the use of the ordinary means, to gain a sufficient understanding of them." This would create a little more consistency and clarity between these two sections. I am not, here, implying that there is confusion or that the original is unclear/inconsistent; rather I am thinking of how to improve upon what is already given.

Conceptual Metaphors

Over the past couple of years I have been familiarizing myself with the world of cognitive science, specifically with cognitive linguistics. The reason for this is because I am deeply interested in all things epistemology and the many roads I have traversed seem to be leading, or converging, in this direction: conceptual metaphor as the center-piece of thought. I am increasingly convinced that almost all knowledge is the byproduct of an embodied experience of the created order through the structuring mechanism of metaphor. Because we are created in God's image I believe we have certain innate capacties that enable our embodied experience, which is why I say almost all knowledge is acquired via metaphor. In effect, what I also see here is a functional bridge between philosophy and theology (I will explain later).

Conceptual metaphor, as a cognitive linguistic mechanism, is the "mapping" of two conceptual domains in order to understand one domain in terms of the other. For example (from my most recent foray), let's use the metaphor "Arithmetic Is Object Collection." The two conceptual domains are "arithmetic" and "object collection." The source domain is "object collection" because that is the domain we are using to understand and frame the concept of arithemtic; consequently the target domain is "arithmetic" because that is the domain we are trying to understand in the terms of our concept(s) of object collection. The mapping works like this (and this is, largely, straight from Where Mathematics Comes From by Lakoff and Nunez, 2000):

source domain --> target domain
object collection --> arithmetic
collections of objects the same size --> numbers
the size of the collection --> the size of the number
bigger --> greater/higher
smaller --> lesser/lower
the smallest collection --> the unit (one)
putting collections together --> addition
taking a smaller collection from a larger collection --> subtraction

This metaphorical mapping occurs on a regular every-day basis and is, in general, largely taken for granted. We ask our waiter for more napkins (or more food) because we are using up what was initially provided to us. In this example we have both conceptual metaphors working. We have a collection of objects (napkins/food) which becomes smaller/less as we subtract from it and becomes bigger/greater as we add to it. But when we ask for more napkins, how often is the concept of arithmetic, or even object collection, consciously present to us? We are "simply" thinking we need more napkins because the meal is particularly messy this evening. Yet, without this metaphoric mapping the concepts of addition and subraction could not be understood. Or, understanding them would be significantly more difficult at any rate. All of this, of course, is a very small (though not insignificant) segment of the larger picture being painted by cognitive science and linguistics. So what's the tie-in with philosopy and theology if we're talking about science?

For all its bluster about objectivity, the scientific community at large has not (and cannot) escape the subjectivity of truth and knowledge. From a purely empirical standpoint, the only experience of reality we can have is a human experience; thus truth and knowledge are subjective even if only in this basic sense. Likewise, the philosophical endeavors within epistemology are doomed to debate eternally because philosophy, like science, refuses to turn to theology for substantive answers. In this vein, let me bring my proposition(s) to a head and this post to a close. Theology is the "meta-string" which ties science and philosophy together. This "meta-string" consists largely (or at least centrally) of conceptual metaphors. The capacity for cross-mapping domains via conceptual metaphors is what allows the connection between the concrete and the abstract as these categories are traditionally understood. What I'd really like to do for graduate work is see what sort of impact/influence this cognitive mechanism has on systematic and biblical theology. More specifically, I think this mechanism could be extremely beneficial in broadening and deepening our knowedge of who and what God is, especially with regards to the person and work of Jesus.

WCF 1.1-4

I would like to preface this series by admitting, from the very beginning, that I am highly unqualified for this task. However, I've never let that stop me from procedeing in the past so let's see where this gets me. I've labeled this entry "CWCF (or RWCF)" which stands for "Contemporary Westminster Confession of Faith" and "Revised Westminster Confession of Faith" respectively. It's far past time for this to have occurred and maybe I can get things started; hopefully in the right direction. What I plan on doing is re-writing and/or revising the WCF in order for it to be more accessible and theologically relevant within the Reformed community specifically and, more broadly, within the larger Evangelical community today. I will start each section with the original Confession in italics and my suggested revision in courier. Afterwards, if needed, I will offer comments regarding the suggested revision (which will be in blue). My primary source will be the WCF published by the Committee for Christian Education & Publications (3rd Edition). Here we go:


Chapter 1 - Of the Holy Scripture


I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable;(1) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.(2) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;(3) and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing:(4) which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;(5) those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. (6)

I. We hold it to be true that the majesty of creation, the vibrance of life, and the coherency of experience* reveal God's goodness, wisdom, and power so that no man has an excuse.(1) Yet this general revelation in the created order cannot impart that knowledge of God, or of His will, which is necessary for salvation.(2) In addition to this general revelation, God has seen fit to reveal Himself, and His will, to His Church in a more personal manner; this He has done in time and by various means.(3) For the preservation and protection of the truth, and of the Church, from Satan in all his guises, God did inspire certain authors to put into writing His personal revelation.(4) This Holy Scripture is most necessary,(5) for God no longer reveals Himself in those former ways but now through His written word, through the presence of the Holy Spirit and through the activity of the Church.(6)

*By this I refer to God's providential ordering and control of His creation which enables an intelligible and consistent experience of it by godly and ungodly men alike.

I've changed the wording a bit in this section to make it "easier" to read, but I believe I have retained the original substance. The Scripture proofs for this section would remain the same, they have been marked parenthetically.


II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. (7)

II. That which goes by the name of "Holy Scripture," or God's written word, are those books which compose the Old and New Testaments. The books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, I, II and III John, Jude, and Revelation. All of these are given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.(7)

Not much to say here. As with the previous section, nothing really changes.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (8)

III. The books commonly called the "Apocrypha," or the "deuterocanonicals," are not divinely inspired like the Holy Scriptures. As such they bear no binding authority on the Church, cannot be approved of in the same manner as Holy Scripture and cannot be considered as more than human writings.(8)


I changed the wording a bit here because I felt that the original language was too harsh on these non-inspired (or non-canonical, at least) books. It's not that the Apocryphal books have no authority, just that they aren't authoritative as the Scriptures (or even as the creeds) are. There is, of course, historically relevant reasons for the divines discrediting these books outright but I feel like this is no longer the case. These books can be beneficial and helpful, but they are not "to be the rule of faith and life."

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (9)


IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, which obligates belief and obedience, does not depend on the testimony of men or the Church; rather it depends wholly upon God (who is truth Himself), the author of Holy Scripture. Therefore it should be received because it is the Word of God.(9)


Once again we don't see any major changes to the substance. I feel that "ought to be believed" is a bit soft and maybe ambiguous. "Ought" implies a sense of moral and spiritual requirement: God demands belief and obedience but this isn't the sort of demanding that we might find in a tempermental child. Instead, it is the demanding of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal Creator. This, in part, is why I altered the parenthetical statement a bit, from "truth itself" to "truth Himself." It should also be noted that our belief and obedience should be our natural response (as Christians) to who God is and what He has done, and still does, for us.