Thanks for the comment. I agree. That was the aim of “Part II” of this series. I try to suggest at least three areas in which I believe the 1689 can be refined and enhanced.

If the confession can be improved upon, is not the burden of proof placed on the person who would do so? Is there a suspicion that one or more parts of the 1689 LBC may need correction or improvement?

Who says the creation account resembles ANE? Why doesn’t ANE resemble the creation accounts?

Valid questions and I don’t want to hijack Prof. Gonzales’ thread in answering. I will post them on my blog, see link below but that will probably be Saturday as I will be too buzy this week to do so.

In the meantime you may be interested in Thoughts on Gen. 1:1-2:4a.

I think Richard’s point was that the 17th century Puritans did not have the same amount of archaeological and historical background material to the Scriptures that we 21st century believers currently possess. This material, when used properly, can shed light on certain texts and teachings of the Old and New Testaments. For example, in his Biblical Theology, John Owen writes an excursus in which he argues that the Hebrew vowel points of the Masoretic text were added at the time of Ezra and should be treated as inspired. We now know that they were added much later, during the Medieval period by Jewish scribes. So here we have an example of an area where 21st century biblical scholarship can make a contribution to our understanding of Scripture that advances the contributions of the Puritans. For more on this subject, see my earlier post Peter Enns, Jeffrey Niehaus, the Ancient Near East, and Inspiration. I do believe that a number of modern discoveries regarding Ancient Near Eastern kingship ideology and international treaty diplomacy have shed light on our understanding of OT theology.

But I agree with your main point. Our doctrinal understanding didn’t stop in the 18th century. The older a confession gets, the more we revere it, at times to our detriment…

I applaud your post. The Reformed Confessions are great, but they were written in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s. They are therefore historical; that is, products of historical circumstances with the data available. Were the Puritans aware that the creation account resembled ANE accounts? No, this was discovered in the 1800s. Had the Westminster divines known this would the WCF have stated what it did regarding creation in six days? Of course we cannot say. The answers to the questions about creation then, cannot be settled by appealing to the WCF because it was written at a time ignorant of where we are at now.The question can only be settled on the basis of solid exegesis.

Similarly, the NPP; if the Westminster divines misunderstood Second Temple Judaism then we can’t simply appeal to the WCF on justification to win the argument. We need to go back to the text of Scripture, assess the ‘new’ discoveries and settle the question on the basis of solid exegesis.

I know of Presbyterians (both here and Stateside) who attack those who disagree with the WCF on ‘days of creation’ and yet they don’t agree with the statements regarding the pope being the antichrist!

To what degree does one need to subscribe to the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed? Is it “all or nothing”? Are there legitimate expressions of difference within the Reformed community? If so who decides what is legitimate or and what is not?

Who gets to define what being Reformed is? Are we to take a snapshot of the Reformed in the 17th century and say that these men are Reformed and unless you agree with them you are not Reformed? Or are we to allow for doctrinal developments within the Reformed community building upon what our forefathers said and taught?

If we are to allow for doctrinal developments within the Reformed community building upon what our forefathers said and taught what happens if we realise that they got some fundamental things wrong owing to the historical circumstances they lived in and the information they had available to them? Are we still remaining true to the Reformed faith if we rework what they said in the light of modern scholarship which changes beyond recognition what they said?

To say that the Spririt of God will lead the Church into all truth but stopped doing so from the 17th century seems to me to be a little, well…odd.

Although I agree with nearly everything in the original Westminster Confession, I get frustrated when I hear about theological controversies being decided upon the basis of an appeal to the Westminster Confession.

Thanks for the interaction. I prefer to think that greater reflection led me to revert back to my previously held baptistic beliefs, but of course my Presby friends prefer to think I’m just confused or never understood the covenant paedobaptist view in the first place.