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.