What does it mean to be reformed in one's theology? Does one need to agree with every statement and proposition in the Westminster Confession of Faith to be reformed? Can someone be considered reformed in their theology if they only agree with the Five Points of Calvinism?
Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary in California wades into this debate with a short article entitled "Substance and Accidents." I first came across this article about seven or eight years ago when the PCA was holding its debate about subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Smaller Catechisms (for those unfamiliar with the debate there were four basic positions espoused though I can only recall two of them: strict subscription and 'good faith subscription').
Strict subscription is exactly what it sounds like: affirming the doctrines in the WCF without exception. 'Good faith subscription' (which won the day) allows for exceptions to the WCF as long as those exceptions do not strike at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine contained in the WCF.
Clark argues that the definition of being reformed in one's theology is not necessarily the same as strict subscription to creeds and confessions. The careful reader will also see a challenge to those 'reformed folk' who only affirm the five points Calvinism.
Westminster Seminary California clark
1 comment:
Hi Dave,
Here's some additional stuff.
Best,
Scott
Post a Comment