Editor’s note: The Session of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Castle Rock, Colo., recently adopted the “Affirmations and Denials: A Call to Confessional Renewal Regarding the Doctrine of Scripture.” The Session also sent this document as an overture to the Rocky Mountain Presbytery requesting that the Presbytery also adopt or affirm these “Affirmations and Denials.”

Affirmations and Denials
A Call to Confessional Renewal
Regarding the Doctrine of Scripture

When in the course of church history the doctrines affirmed by the church and confessed as true and necessary for life and godliness are challenged, questioned or attacked, it is right and proper for the church to review and renew its commitment to these foundational doctrines. Each generation of the church has been confronted from within and without regarding the veracity of its major tenets of faith. When the basic formulations of the system of doctrine are challenged, attempts made to redefine their historic meanings, or questions raised about specific doctrines, it is necessary for the church to confront and respond to the challenges.

The PCA has adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. Its officers give assent to this in the second ordination question: “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures…?” (BCO 21-5; 24-6). While the PCA recognizes that the Confession of Faith and Catechisms are human documents, it also affirms them “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice” (BCO 29-1).

At the present time there is a growing challenge to the doctrine of Scripture in a number of quarters in or closely related to the PCA. For example, a seminary known for its Reformed heritage and with close ties to the PCA, acted recently with regard to views of Scripture among some its faculty that were determined to be at variance with the Westminster Standards. In another instance, a PCA Presbytery did not approve a candidate’s theological exam because his views on Scripture were judged to be out of accord with the Standards.

In light of these events and with the hope of preventing major disputes in the PCA, this resolution makes a plea for the PCA to revisit and reaffirm its position on Scripture as presented in our Standards. This reaffirmation is not an extra-confessional act as much as it is a form of confessional renewal (in the same sense that Josiah led the people in covenant renewal, “confirming the words of the covenant written in this book,” II Kings 23:1-3). This confessional renewal is a means of urging the PCA to reaffirm its commitment to the Bible’s doctrine regarding itself as Scripture (the superior standard and only infallible rule of faith and practice), as well as the Westminster Standards’ (the inferior, secondary standards to the Scriptures) teachings on the doctrine of Scripture. It also touches on critical clarifications of the hermeneutical principles and methods taught in the Scriptures and the subordinate Standards. This resolution is not requesting amendments to the Standards but is a call to confessional renewal with regard to our doctrine of Scripture. This resolution asks Sessions and Presbyteries to adopt or affirm these Affirmations and Denials. By this renewal we trust that:

1. It will clarify theological and hermeneutical misunderstandings that have occurred in recent theological controversies in various parts of the church that are or may have an impact in the PCA.
2. It will refine the core commitments of the PCA by clarifying foundational theological boundaries established by Scripture and the Standards that guide our view and use of Scripture in our preaching, teaching and ministry.

These Affirmations and Denials are taken from a portion of a position statement adopted by the board of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia on December 3, 2008 in light of recent issues on that campus. They are used with permission.

Affirmations and Denials

I. Confessional Subscription

A. Basic Character of Subscription

We affirm that the Standards are subordinate standards. Scripture itself, as the primary standard, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice (WCF 1.2; 1.10; WLC 3; WSC 2).

We deny that the primacy of Scripture makes confessional subscription unimportant or dispensable or superfluous (WCF 22).

We affirm that our subscription to the Standards includes a cordial and full affirmation that the Standards are a just exhibition of the system of doctrine and religious belief, which is contained in Holy Scripture.

We deny that our subscription merely requires that an officer is to be instructed or guided by the Standards.

We affirm that the Westminster Standards are fallible, that is, that it is possible in principle that they may err, and, further, that they are open to revision (WCF 31.4).

We deny that the Westminster Standards are infallible.

B. Progress in Understanding Scripture

We affirm that Scripture contains truths not included in the Westminster Standards (WCF 1.6).

We deny that there are truths found in Scripture but not in the Standards that overthrow or undermine any element in the system of doctrine expounded in the Standards.

We affirm that God himself enjoins us to seek an ever deeper and more comprehensive understanding of his word (WLC 157).

We deny that we cannot add to or deepen the understanding of God’s word expressed in the Standards.

II. Confession and Mission

A. Universality of Truth

We affirm that the truths affirmed in the Standards are true for all times, all places, all languages, and all cultures (WCF 1.1, 6, 8).

We deny that the truths affirmed in the Standards are true only for their seventeenth century situation or only for some cultures or circumstances.

We affirm that a person’s agreement with the content of the Standards includes agreement with all its affirmations as perennially normative, not merely agreement that they were an appropriate response to the theological, ecclesiastical, and pastoral needs of the seventeenth century.

We deny that a person’s agreement with the Standards is adequate if, at any point, it merely means agreeing pragmatically with the way in which the Standards addressed the needs of their situation.

We affirm that the Standards have instructional value for all times and all cultures.

We deny that the Standards have instructional value only in some cultures.

B. The Legitimacy of Pedagogical Adaptation

We affirm that teaching of the Standards in a particular language or culture can and should take into account the existing previous theological understanding and education, crucial theological and pastoral issues in the circumstances, and problems and opportunities arising in the church and in the surrounding culture (WLC 159).

We deny that theological teaching need not attend to such circumstances.

We affirm that theological teaching can legitimately adjust in teaching style, phraseology, selection of content, use of illustrations, and many other ways that prove significant in facilitating the communication and grasp of truth in the target language and culture (WLC 159).

We deny that adjustments in pedagogy and communicative strategy imply compromise of the truths affirmed in the Standards.

III. Scripture

A. The Inspiration of Scripture

We affirm that the Holy Scripture is to be believed and obeyed, because it is the Word of God (WCF 1.4; WLC 157, 160).

We deny that the Holy Scripture is to be believed or obeyed merely because it contains the Word of God, or merely because it conveys the Word of God, or merely because the Holy Spirit uses it to effect a personal encounter with God. We affirm that what Scripture says, God says (WCF 1.4; 1.10; 14.2).

We deny that what Scripture says is only sometimes or only partly what God says, or that Scripture only becomes what God says in the act of communication to some person.

We affirm that in causing his Word to be written down in the Bible, God, the primary author, used human writers, the secondary authors, often employing them in the full range of their personalities and existing gifts and abilities, with the exception that he kept them from error (WCF 1.2, 4 prooftexts).

We deny that God produced the Scripture without using human authors..

We affirm that God remains true, good, pure, righteous, all-knowing, and immutable when he delivers Scripture to us, and what Scripture says – both in each detail and as a whole – is always consistent with and manifests his character (WCF 1.4, 2.1).

We deny that the presence of human agents in the writing of Scripture, or any other use of means, or any relation to cultural or historical circumstances in the writing, allow the interpreter to dismiss or cease to reckon with the fact that what God says in Scripture is always consistent with his character.

B. The Interpretation of Scripture

We affirm that each verse and passage belongs to a larger context of other Scripture, to which God expects us to attend (WCF 1.2, 1.9; WLC 157).

We deny that any verse or passage can be given its full and proper interpretation by taking it in isolation from the book to which it belongs, or from the Scripture as a whole.

We affirm that we can understand passages of Scripture more deeply when we take into account the historical and cultural circumstances that they addressed (WLC 157).

We deny that historical and cultural circumstances are irrelevant to understanding Scriptural passages.

We affirm that Scripture makes known clearly those things necessary to be believed and observed for salvation, so that even the unlearned may come to sufficient understanding through due use of ordinary means (WCF 1.7).

We deny that extra-biblical knowledge of ancient customs or circumstances is necessary to understand the gospel of salvation in Christ as the central message of Scripture.

C. The Pertinence of Ancient Contexts: Ancient Near-Eastern and First Century Mediterranean World

We affirm that God in his wisdom addressed Scripture to his people of long ago in a manner that takes into account their historical setting and their previous knowledge (WCF 7.5, 2.1).

We deny that Scripture fails to take into account the setting of its ancient addressees, or that it fails adequately to address ancient people.

We affirm that what Scripture affirms to its ancient addressees is always true (WCF 2.1).

We deny that limitations in ancient addressees and their setting may ever allow the inclusion of untruths as a part of what Scripture affirms or what it implies.

We affirm that God in producing the canon of Scripture addresses peoples of all subsequent times, places, and cultures (WCF 1.1; 1.8; WLC 155, 156).

We deny that God addresses only the people who lived at the time that a book was written.

We affirm that what the Scripture affirms is to be believed and obeyed by people in all places and cultures (WCF 1.4; 14.2; WLC 156).

We deny that what Scripture affirms lays obligations of belief and obedience only on the original recipients, or only on some cultures.

We affirm that some earlier commands of Scripture have meaning such that their application to our present circumstances must reckon with the changed redemptive-historical conditions in which God addresses us. For example, animal sacrifices that were prescribed in the Old Testament are no longer legitimate now, because Christ has offered the final sacrifice (WCF 19.3, 4).

We deny that there are no commands whose application varies with the changing redemptive-historical context.

D. The Truthfulness of Scripture

We affirm that the Holy Scripture contains a system of doctrine.

We deny that the Holy Scripture lacks doctrinal unity on any point of doctrine, or that it does not always agree with itself.

We affirm that the Holy Scripture is harmonious in all its teaching (WCF 1.9).

We deny that there are real contradictions in Scripture.

We affirm that Scripture is truthful and without error in what it affirms (WCF 1.4; 2.1).

We deny that Scripture affirms anything that is factually erroneous or is incorrect.

We affirm that Scripture can quote from, allude to, or otherwise represent, in a manner distinct from its own affirmations, the fallible speech and thought deriving from fallible, sinful human beings (e.g., “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God,'” Ps. 14:1).

We deny that Scripture’s quotation or representation of fallible thought implies Scripture’s own fallibility.

E. The Role of The Holy Spirit

We affirm that the work of the Holy Spirit in a person is necessary for that person properly and savingly to understand the Scripture and that full acceptance and a willingness to submit unconditionally to its teaching is essential to such proper understanding (WCF 10.1; 14:2; WLC 104; 155; 157; WSC 89).

We deny that exercise of the rational powers of fallen man is sufficient for a right understanding of Scripture.

We affirm that God’s truthfulness and self-consistency belong to what the Scripture says, not merely to what the Holy Spirit may be later alleged to show us through the Scripture (WCF 1.4).

We deny that God’s authority belongs only to the Spirit’s teaching from the Scripture, rather than to the Scripture itself as well.

IV. Special Areas of Interest

A. Special Area: Harmony of Scripture

We affirm that some things in Scripture are difficult to understand, and that we may not always be able easily to explain apparent contradictions (WCF 1.7).

We deny that all parts of Scripture are easy to understand.

We affirm that, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we can rightly become convinced from Scripture itself that it is the Word of God, even when we do not have an explanation for some of the apparent discrepancies in Scripture (WCF 1.5).

We deny that we must find explanations for each apparent discrepancy before accepting the divine authority of Scripture and submitting to its teaching.

We affirm that each individual passage of Scripture is consistent in its affirmations with every other passage (WCF 1.9).

We deny that passages may contradict one another.

We affirm that when interpreting any passage, the true meaning must be found by comparing the one passage with the rest of Scripture (WCF 1.9.)

We deny that it is legitimate to give an interpretation of a passage that is not in harmony with what is affirmed in another passage or passages.

We affirm doctrinal unity and coherence in a given passage between the meaning of God, as its primary author, and the meaning of the human author, however limited may have been the understanding of the latter of what he wrote (WCF 1.4, 5).

We deny that in a given passage the intentions of God and the human writer are doctrinally divergent or discordant.

B. Special Area: Implications of Details in Scripture, Including NT Use of the OT

We affirm that we must submit to all that Scripture affirms, not merely to its main points (WCF 1.4; WLC 157, 160).

We deny that the divine authority of Scripture belongs only to its main purpose or only to the main points of its various passages.

We affirm that we must submit to the New Testament affirmations concerning the Old Testament, and not merely to the conclusions that the New Testament draws from them.

We deny that it is ever allowable to submit to conclusions but not to other affirmations in the Scripture.

We affirm that the methods and reasoning that Scripture uses in reaching its conclusions are valid.

We deny that any Scripture uses invalid methods or reasoning to draw valid conclusions.

C. Special Area: Old Testament Teaching

We affirm that in the Old Testament God spoke to his people in a way that took into account their lack of detailed knowledge of the coming salvation to be revealed in the New Testament (WCF 7.5).

We deny that there are no differences between the Old and New Testaments.

We affirm that what God said in the Old Testament is always in harmony with later teaching in the New Testament, though it may not always be as full or explicit (WCF 7.).

We deny that the New Testament shows any contradiction to what is in the Old Testament.

We affirm that we can sometimes understand passages in the Old Testament more deeply in the light of the later revelation that God has given us in Christ (WCF 7.5).

We deny that we can never have more understanding of an Old Testament passage than what was available to people when it was first given.

We affirm that God’s intention with respect to an Old Testament passage is consistent with his later reference to or allusion to that passage in the New Testament (WCF 1.9.).

We deny that God’s intentions at two different points in time, or in two different texts, are ever in disharmony.

We affirm doctrinal continuity and harmony between the original historical and human meaning of an Old Testament text and the meaning a New Testament writer attributes to that text (WCF 1.5; 1.9).

We deny that there is any doctrinal divergence or disparity between the original historical and human meaning of an Old Testament text and its use in the New Testament.

D. Special Area: Old Testament History

We affirm that Adam and Eve were real flesh-and-blood individual human beings and that their fall into sin was subsequent to their creation as the first human beings (WCF 6.1; 7.2; WLC 17).

We deny that the narrative in Genesis 3 is merely symbolic for what is true of mankind in general.

We affirm that God’s acts of creation, as listed in each of the six days of Genesis 1, really happened in space and time (WCF 4.1; WLC 15).

We deny that Genesis 1 merely teaches that God made everything.

We affirm that in Genesis 1 God communicated to ancient people in a manner intelligible to them (WCF 1.7).

We deny that Genesis 1 requires special modern knowledge or scientific knowledge for it to be understood.

We affirm that in the Scripture God does not endorse at any point a faulty worldview or cosmology or a faulty aspect thereof (WCF 1.4; 2.1).

We deny that Scripture at any point affirms a faulty cosmology.

We affirm that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real people who went through the experiences that Genesis describes them as going through (WCF 1.4; 2.1; 14.2; WLC 160).

We deny that the narratives in Genesis about the patriarchs are merely legendary, or that only some smaller core of events really happened.

We affirm that biblical theology (attention to the text in its redemptive-historical context) is the indispensable servant of systematic theology–indispensable because it is essential for the sound exegesis on which systematic theology depends, a servant because it contributes to the presentation, under appropriate topics, of the teaching of Scripture as a whole and in its overall unity that systematic theology is concerned to provide for the life of the church and its mission in the world.

We deny that biblical theology and systematic theology, properly understood, are in conflict or are alternative approaches to Scripture independent of each other, or that either is dispensable.

We affirm that the teachings of Scripture concerning God, Christ, man, sin, salvation, and other topics, as those teachings are summarized in systematic theology, offer a sound framework in which to conduct the work of exegesis and biblical theology.

We deny that exegesis or biblical theology can be properly conducted without submission to or in tension with the teaching of Scripture as a whole.