The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question for Ian Potts on the WCF

Dear Ian,

the following a quotation from the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XIX. So that I can understand your views more accurately could you let me know which bits of it you agree with and which you disagree with? If you can indicate why you disagree with parts, if any, that would be helpful too.

Yours in Christ,

James.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

Thank you for your question James.

I am interested in why you start at point VI?

Why not also consider points I to V, as follows:-


Before I examine any of the points, I ask you - where do you think I differ with them? Perhaps you can make your suggestions of where my beliefs contradict the WCF in your understanding? My beliefs should be quite evident from my other posts on here, especially in the 'Antinomianism' thread.

Also, when you consider each point in the WCF I would seriously recommend that you look at each of the scripture verses given as backing, to see if the scripture really says what is claimed from it. Reading the references given can be quite illuminating actually.

Finally James, we should always get our doctrine from the scriptures. Whereever a Confession of Faith agrees with what scripture teaches then I will agree with it, but if scripture says otherwise, then I must go by scripture. So I encourage you to compare this section of the WCF with scripture, and take note of the scripture references cited for each point.

I started at section 6 since it seems these quoted sections are ones which are at the heart of the antinomian thread. Since you seemed concerned that your views were being misunderstood, and so that I could better understand you, I posted this question.

Your views are not clear to me from your other posts and I'm offering you the chance to help me out here!

You are free to choose not to answer though that will seem to be a guilty silence.

You are clearly not familiar with the history of the WCF: the scripture proofs are not part of the Confession itself. The Westminster Divines held that the whole bible is the scripture proof of the Confession.

I look forward to your reply to my original post if you are truly interested in bringing light rather than heat to this topic.

Yours in Christ,

James.

James,

"And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him."
Luke 23:8-10

If I chose not to answer it certainly would not be a 'guilty silence' James. Was Christ guilty when he kept his silence before Herod? There are times to talk and times to keep quiet. Silence does not demonstrate guilt. Sorry to make a point about that, but I think it needs making.

Nevertheless you are keen for me to respond and I am quite happy, and able to do so, given time. I will come back to this in due course. Which point would you like me to start at then? Point VI? Or Point II?

The reason I quoted points I to V is because they are very relevant too. Look at point V - the law is equally binding on believers and unbelievers it says. Well, here's your first reply - No it isn't. See 1 Timothy 1:9 as I expounded it in response to Pilgrim in the 'Antinomian' thread. The law is NOT made for a righteous man.

I am aware of much of the history of the WCF. I refer to the scripture proofs which have been added in modern printings as backing for the points. These have been added by those who consider themselves to understand the WCF well, so should represent scriptures which they feel validate the points made. Go read those scriptures.

Can you really provide no examples of where you think I differ from these points though James? I made my request in my previous post because it would help me to have an idea of what you have grasped and what you haven't. Then I know what to concentrate on.

Certainly James, my desire is to bring light to the matter, not heat. The heat you refer to arises because of the strong objections that some have to the truth. I trust that you have ears open to the word and a teachable heart James?

In Grace,

Ian

Section VI please Ian.

James.

Alright James, I'll take it bit by bit so you can interact along the way:

"VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned"

Right, this is the first part I disagree with. Obviously I agree as far as it goes, but it doesn't give the whole meaning of how we are not under the law - it qualifies it. Now, I didn't get far in the article before disagreeing, did I?!

This clause 'as a covenant of works' qualifies the scriptural statements made in several places that we are not under the law. It narrows the meaning down to applying only to justification. That isn't what scripture teaches, or what the referenced scripture verses teach.

We read the following:-


None of these verses are restricted in meaning to justification. They refer to the position of the believer as a justified man, who is now no longer under the law (in any sense) but under grace. He is lawfully delivered from the law by the body of Christ.

Hope that helps. I do think we ought to have looked at point V though. Points I to IV also.

BTW the footnotes given in the WCF for this clause are as follows. None of them demonstrate the need for the 'qualification' of 'as a covenant of works' in the clause:

OK, I think we are agreeing we aren't justified by the law.

Do I therefore understand from your comments "as a covenant of works" that you will disagree with the rest of section VI as it enumerates ways in which the law is useful to the believer?

In Christ,

James.

I don't disagree with all of the rest, in every sense, but I do disagree with much that is asserted there. I think it best if we go through it all sentence by sentence, and not only 'disagree' but set forth the positive - what scripture does teach.

Are you happy to move on? Or do you wish to discuss the first sentence more?

You agree with me that we aren't justified by the law but do you agree that we are not under it, not just as a covenant of works, but in any way? If we are not under it, we are not under it are we?

I would rather conclude the first clause before moving on. ie. come to agreement, or come to 'agree to disagree'!

We'll agree to disagree and move on. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I am most interested in understanding where your views agree and disagree with this section of the WCF.

Thanks,

James.

Alright James. Next clause then…

“yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;”

I disagree with these statements. Certainly the Ten Commandments do reveal some of the will of God, the justice, holiness and goodness of God. But they provide no means to perform what they demand, and therefore are no rule of life for the believer. The “moral law” (Ten Commandments) is not a rule of life for the believer, as he is delivered from it, he is not under it, his rule of life is the Gospel of Christ. The just shall live by faith. The believer walks in the Spirit, not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh (Rom 8), he walks in faith and love to God and shows forth love to his brethren, not as a result of the legal command, but as a fruit of the Spirit of God (Gal 5) working within him, which results in conduct which fulfils the law’s demands, but isn’t ‘produced’ by its rule.

The “moral law” is not binding upon the believer, because then he would still be in bondage to it, but the scriptures clearly teach us that the believer is delivered from the law (Rom 7:6), he is no longer married to it (Romans 7:4), he is not yoked to it (Gal 5:1), he is dead to it (Rom 7:4), he is not under it (Rom 6:14, Gal 5:18), nor is he in bondage to it (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:9, Gal 4:24). He is married to Christ (Rom 7:4), he is yoked to Christ (Matt 11:30), he is alive to God(Gal 2:19), he is under grace (Rom 6:14), and he walks in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free (Gal 5:1).


If the believer puts himself back under law, then he puts himself back under the dominion of sin, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14. That is no rule of life which produces sin. The Gospel however, grace, ensures that sin no longer has dominion.

In 2 Corinthians 3 the law is referred to as the letter which killeth, as engraven in stones (Ten Commandments), as a ministration of death, as a ministration of condemnation, and as that which is done away. The Gospel is referred to as the spirit which giveth life, as the ministration of the spirit, as the ministration of righteousness, as that which remains and which is more glorious than any glory seen in the law by reason of the glory which excelleth.

The believer’s rule of life is the Gospel, not the law. It is to live by faith, to be led of the Spirit, as new creations in Christ Jesus, in a new and living way. Galatians 6:16.

I have dealt with this briefly here and could say much more. But this should suffice for the moment.

In Grace,
Ian



BTW the verses used to defend this clause in the WCF are shown below. I am happy to go through those verses if you like to show their misapplication in supporting the clause, but I believe what I have quoted above shows clearly enough that the “moral law” is not the believer’s rule of life, nor is it binding upon him.

Mr. Potts,

Aside from disputing your interpretation and use of the texts you have quoted, some of which I have shown to be in error in other threads, I thought it would be prudent and edifying to others to read what the historic position is concerning this section of the WCF XIX.1-2, who might not otherwise have access to it. Thus, I have attached A.A. Hodge's commentary on this section of the WCF, from his classic work, The Confession of Faith, Banner of Truth, first published in 1869, pp. 248-253.

The attachment is in .pdf format which should be readable to everyone.

Dear Ian,

sorry for the delay in replying. My week became rather busy!

Thank you for your fullsome post. I continue to read and hopefully understand your views more.

I note you consider that for something to be a rule for Christians it must have the power to produce fulfillment of what it demands. I also note that you see the law as something which can only lead to death and put people in bondage. Further you do not consider that Christians have any positive relationship to it. Nor does it show them how to live. They must get that from somewhere else.

Please do feel free to correct anything I've misunderstood and to move on to the next clause of the Confession.

In Christ,

James.

James,

Obviously you haven't visited the "Book Nook" Forum of late and are not privy to some recent events which took place here re: Ian Potts.

You should read this post: Notice concerning Ian Potts.

PS: If you are interested in learning more about what Ian Potts believes concerning the Moral Law, but also the active obedience of Christ and other core doctrines of the Christian faith, I would point you to the writings of one heretic, a cultic English writer named, John Metcalfe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Thanks for the info. I hadn't spotted that post.

I was interested to understand more of his views since I may attend a day conference at a church nearby. I noticed Ian had links with this pastor so I was intrigued to understand more of Ian's "distinctive" views.

How we are to know how to please God without turning to his perfect law still beats me!

In Christ

James (quietly returning to the Church Locator Forum after a brief visit to the world outside.)

James a wonderful fellow such as yourself should get out amongst us more. I was following with interest the discussion between you and Mr. Potts. And I think your calm influence and your quiet determination is much missed here in these wild and wooly discussions. Can we not ask you to join us more?



Pete