You are here
Confession of 1967 side D.
Primary tabs
Download
- speaker[Little. Ganse] The commissioner at microphone five. I am alternating back and forth. Yes, sir. Sam Appel [Rev. Samuel E. Appel]
- speakerfrom West Jersey Presbytery. Yes Mr Appel. [Appel speaking] One question: Is there something in the Confession of Sixty-Seven as over against
- speakerthe other confessions that speak to the Bible. That is absolutely essential if modern
- speakertwentieth century man is going to approach the Bible and find it understandable and, I would think, and willing to live under its
- speakeruniqueness and authority? [Skinner, W. Sherman] I'm sure there is in this statement a transcension of some of the problems, which have
- speakerharangued us in a pre-scientific day. And, we believe the Word of God
- speakerspeaks in diverse cultural situations, continues to speak, but the emphasis here, as was
- speakerbrought out earlier, is not on inspiration, which can be a rather incipid umbrella to cover one hundred
- speakerdifferent doctrines, but on what is God saying to us now. What is the call of the Spirit of God
- speakerto us? How may we respond to revelation, which is his
- speakerguidance for us? I think this is what is significant here. [Little, Ganse] Before we leave this question, because
- speakeragain I think this deals with one of the crucial issues, may I ask Dr Haroutunian [Joseph Haroutunian of McCormick] to speak to the question? [Haroutunian speaking]
- speakerI think that's a wonderful question. And, I feel rather strongly about it. And, this is why I almost asked to
- speakerspeak. I think that. I think that the modern man. I'm in a university, and
- speakerI think I am a part of this culture. And, I think that one thing that he feels strongly about
- speakerat his best is not to distort fact in his desire to
- speakermake life easier for him. In other words, there's a kind of a conscience about
- speakertruth, about what happened and when it happened, as we used to say "When, how, where?"
- speakerI mean the modern scientific-minded man when he's dealing with historical material, he honestly
- speakerwants to know who said it, when he said it, how he said it, why he said it.
- speakerAnd, he is uncomfortable, you know, unless he gets the best answer he can to that.
- speakerAnd, I think that we should not confuse this kind of objectivity and this kind of a zeal for,
- speakerwell, in a very naïve sense truth by too glib talking
- speakerabout God's Word and God's revelation and so on, which is which unless properly
- speakerrelated to this passion in the modern mind, we make it very difficult for him to understand even
- speakerwhat we're talking about. So I would. My answer to you is that the modern, this modern man you're
- speakertalking about this. Assuming, of course, at his best when he's really himself, has got a kind of a
- speakerconscience about about truth that that. And I think this confession
- speakeris a statement that is here really is directed towards that. It was stronger before
- speakerWe, we weakened it because of some of the objections to putting up on the people the
- speakerburden of of becoming scholars. Of course, everybody can't be a scholar, but it seems to me everybody has got
- speakeran obligation to be honest. I mean I have this is the way I react to that. As far as the modern
- speakerscientific culture or attitude is concerned there's a kind of a respect for
- speakerfor the materials the way they are, which I think we would want to speak with them
- speakerand deal honestly with them, we have to have too. [Little Ganse] The commissioner at microphone three. Ed Danks [Danks, Edward R., Burbank, CA],
- speakerLos Angeles. Yes I have a question, Mr. Moderator, about the preface. I wonder if the preface is a part of the
- speakerConfession of Nineteen Sixty-Seven. It would seem to me, and I use each word advisedly, that the
- speakerpreface itself contains a potential implied position of supremacy in
- speakerthe Book of Confessions. In reading all of the confessions, aside from Barmen, none of them has a preface.
- speakerAnd, with the Book of Confessions, in whatever printed form it might be, to see a preface such as
- speakerthis, which states that no one statement is irrefutable and irreformable and so
- speakeron, it would seem to imply a potential position of supremacy. And, I wonder if the Committee had done any thinking
- speakerabout perhaps putting a portion of it as a preface to the total Book of Confessions, rather
- speakerthan strictly the Confession of Sixty-Seven? [Little, Ganse] It's your preface, Dr. Dowey. [Dowey, Edward A., Jr.] It seems to me that you really
- speakerdid get the point of this preface. And the question of where it is, well it
- speakeris an interesting idea. I think we should consider it. But, what we actually with this last document that
- speakerthis Book of Confessions has created. And that we have reaffirmed this
- speakerconception of the Book of Confessions. Really the locus for that
- speakerrationale is this preface. I don't know. [Danks] It would just seem to me, for exampl,e that lines one through twenty seven
- speakerhave nothing whatsoever to do with the Confession of Sixty-Seven. It was a concept of the Book of Confessions [Dowey] Exactly! [Danks] Which is one of
- speakerthree parts that were back there. By putting it before Sixty-Seven, it carries a
- speakerpotential implication of supremacy. I'm not saying it does, but it carries it. [Dowey] I think it's clear its says no
- speakerdocument is irreformable and so on. Incidentally, that's. We got that language from Vatican One,
- speakerwhich said that the declarations of the pope are irreformable. We just took the language and reversed it. Well, let's
- speakerthink about it. It is clearly what you have in mind is what we mean. Microphone number five, please. Mr
- speakerModerator. I'm William Anderson, Peoria Presbytery [Rev. William D. Anderson, Canton, IL] And I still have been there before you Presbyterian. And I find the words
- speakerthat were formally referred to on line three hundred thirty-two, along with my session,
- speakervery exciting, but I my station find in insighting. And, I would like to ask,So that I will know how
- speakerto act at some future moment in this Assembly, if this phrase "even at the risk
- speakerof national security" were left out of the Confession, if it would substantially change the meaning?[Ganse Little]
- speakerDr. Theophilus Taylor. [Taylor, Theophilus Mills, speaking] In the third chapter of. Philippians, Paul says, "Our citizenship
- speakeris in heaven." This means, of course, that the Christian is a citizen of two worlds.
- speakerAs Paul was a citizen of the Roman Empire in which he prided himself. But also a
- speakercitizen of an empire that was not limited to this physical world. Being in that position,
- speakerif there comes a test of loyalty between the two citizenships,
- speakerPaul would have to agree with Peter whether to obey God or man. I leave it to you
- speakerto judge. But the Christian position is to obey God The gospel is the gospel of reconciliation.
- speakerThis is the gospel of the kingdom of which we are citizens. The
- speakerkingdom is not to be identified with any earthly kingdom. Therefore, if in obedience to our
- speakercitizenship of the Kingdom of God, we are called upon at some given time in history to
- speakerrisk the safety of the earthly kingdom, of which we happen to be citizens, that is what we are called to do.
- speakerAnd, that is what this says. [Anderson, William D., speaking] Well sir, may I have one more moment of your time? I think the reference
- speakerfrom my session is to the arrangement of the sentence. It says, "This requires the
- speakerpursuit of fresh and responsible relations across every line of
- speakerconflict." Now, it seems to my session, that what is said when
- speakerit does say "at the risk even at the risk of national security," that this is already said, in
- speakeressence. "Even at the risk of national security" is superfluous. Is this true, sir? [Taylor, Theophilus Mills, speaking]
- speakerPerhaps it can be implied from the preceding sentence, is that what you are talking about? [Anderson] Well, from the content of the entire
- speakersentence. Is just not saying the same thing twice? [Taylor, Theophilus Mills] The reason it was put in here was that it was felt
- speakerthat this is something that needs to be said peculiarly at this time in American history by an American church.
- speakerAnd, in order not to leave any doubt as to what was intended, it was said as explicitly as it is said. Now there is someone else who would
- speakerlike to take a crack. [Ganse Little] Dr Dowey [Dowey, Edward A., Jr.] would like to take a crack or at least he is willing to. [Dowey, Edward A., Jr.] May I? Yes or
- speakerlike that. Let me just use two phrases, Bill, on this excellent account. The kingdom of this
- speakerworld takes precedence. We may legitimately call this the idolatry of the nation. Is
- speakerthat clear. I mean. You would accept this, I take it. [Anderson, William D.] Yes, sir. [Dowey] Now, it was our feeling that if
- speakerwe condemned the idolatry of the nation, everybody would agree with us. Our problem in
- speakerbeing contemporary, precise, ad hoc concrete in America today was to
- speakerfind the point at which, the most sensitive point, at which we as a nation
- speakeras responsible citizens are likely to be guilty of this idolatry. Now it seems, we're suggesting,
- speakerthat we are told constantly with reference to these problems that this issue stops at
- speakerthe national boundaries. The security, national security, is the one thing on which we must all be quiet. You
- speakermay even silence the church on this. So we thought that the most concrete specific danger
- speakeris at that point where the government says, "The security is here involved. You must be quiet." And we
- speakerthink if we said the idolatry of the nation. It. Everybody would agree and no one would notice it, but to put it in this
- speakerprecise concrete form, which we judged to be. We're very interested to hear whether you
- speakerreally think that's the case. We judge to be the form in which the idolatry is most
- speakerof a temptation to us. Then we get some response. And we have at least heard in many instances that
- speakerdiscussing it in this light has been illuminating. [Anderson, William D.] Then, you did intend to incite? That's true? Yes.
- speakerOne misunderstanding that we incite is more security is simply security
- speakerguards and so on. We don't have in mind that we're going to interfere with guards at an armament plant. [Ganse Little] I think I found out
- speakereven dealing with my own affairs that the phrase I often or the action I often call superfluous
- speakerto the degree to which it incites indicates that it is not superfluous at all. Quite the contrary. And that the very
- speakerpeople who think it is superfluous by their comment are indicating exactly how germane they
- speakerreally feel it is I mean I'm just saying that whatever brother were in this world together. The microphone
- speakernumber three. John Gammie, Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma [Dr. John G. Gammie of Tulsa Presbytery]. Sir. A question I have pertains to
- speakerthe relationship between the Book of Confessions and Confession of Sixty-Seven. And the
- speakerquestion was evoked by an offhand comment of Dr. Skinner's. The offhand comment was
- speakerWell the book of sixty seven will come first and then we'll get to the other creeds.
- speakerIt seems to me that the question I have is has the Committee considered that the publication of Sixty-
- speakerSeven without the book of creeds would be acting against the principles they have been articulating? [Skinner, W. Sherman]
- speakerI agree with you completely. I don't believe I ever said what you thought I said. [Anderson, William D.] I was just thinking that the publishers were behind
- speakeryou so much it. We want to put out Sixty-Seven the way Phillips has been pointing out his New Testament, the Gospel, the Letters to Churches,
- speakerand then. Then you get the Helvetic Confession and finally the Westminster, where you would be saying something
- speakerthat would contradict by your publication that you don't intend to say. And I thought I heard you say. The
- speakerYet the Book of Confessions will come later. And, the implication I got was that it would be published. That it would be published
- speakerSixty-Seven and then the book. [Skinner, W. Sherman] I know where you're talking about, and it is exactly the opposite. That the Book of
- speakerConfessions comes logically and chronologically first. This is the basis and genius of
- speakerthe whole proposal. And we can. We have six, the Confession of Sixty-Seven only on top of the
- speakerrest of the Book of Confessions. [Anderson, William D.] In publication? In the first publication that comes out? The first official publication
- speakerby the United Presbyterian Church. Sixty-Seven would not come out without the Book of Confessions?
- speakerIs that what you're going to recommend? [Skinner] Sure. True. That's right. The Book of Confessions is a part, one
- speakerof the two parts of the Constitution would have these eight, nine
- speakerconfessions in order, Sixty-Seven the last one. [Anderson] Starting from the first publication? [Ganse Little] The moderator can assure
- speakeryou on this one because this is an integral part of the motion that will be before us until we finally do something with it "That the
- speakerConstitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America be amended to consist of two parts, colon, the Book of
- speakerConfessions and the Book of Order, semicolon. The Book of Confessions to contain, et cetera. These have got to come out at the same time.
- speakerAnd this is nominated in the bond. Question over here at microphone five. I'm Marshall Key [Ruling elder Marshall E. Key] from the Presbytery of
- speakerSpringfield Illinois. [Little] Yes, Mr Key. [Key, Marshall E.] I'm just a poor dumb farm boy. And, I know I'm going to
- speakerbe asked question when I get back home. I have asked a few people today, I have had some
- speakerask me. I'd like to know the answer. Everyone have been different. Why do we have to have a new
- speakerconfession in the first place? [Skinner] Lou Evans. [Evans, Louis H., Jr.] Mr. Key, the church writes a confession in
- speakerresponse to the demands of its day. Now for instance in the early days when
- speakerthe church was just beginning, you remember the Roman government had authority. It wasn't
- speakerlong after the church came into being that the Roman emperor declared himself a God. And, that the
- speakerChristians would have to, along with other people, worship him as God. And so
- speakeras a man by the name of Polycarp came before one of the Roman
- speakerprefects he said, "Swear by the forces of Caesar. Curse Christ." And Polycarp said, " I
- speakerwill not. I have served him eighty and six years he's done me no harm. and so forth. Now, as Polycarp made his
- speakerconfession, he had to state what he believed. The same was true of Justin about ten years later, who was of course
- speakernow renamed the martyr. When he was pressed by the Roman prefect Rusticus, he said,
- speaker"Miserable man, what do you believe? Tell me your doctrines. And he spoke in terms very
- speakersimilar in a basic outline form of our present Apostles Creed. So as the early church was
- speakerforced to make it statement of belief before a Roman prefect, they had to make a
- speakerconfession. And out of this, there grew an accepted text that the
- speakerearly Church used as its baptimsal formula. Sometimes that with which they were baptized was not water
- speakerbut their own blood. Then if you remember Constantine took the throne. There was the edict of toleration. No longer did
- speakerChristians have to die for their confession. Then the church turned to something else. Within it
- speakerrose the argument, the discussion, the controversy, and the heresies: Who is this Jesus Christ who we've been
- speakerconfessing? So one group says well he's like God but he isn't God. Another group says well he was a man
- speakerand he was such a wonderful man that God adopted him to be his son. Another group said, "Well, are there two natures?
- speakerAre there one nature to Jesus Christ. Are the two wills? Is there one will here?" So for another two
- speakercenturies, the church had to come to grips with this problem. Out of that came the Nicene Creed.
- speakerThe Constantinople Creed and so forth. Then we went from a Christological period of controversy into the period
- speakerabout the church itself. What's its authority? Where does it get its power? And, at the end
- speakerof that, almost a thousand years, the Reformation was born. And, to this the
- speakerReformed. Creed spoke. What is the authority of the Church? It is Jesus Christ, through the Scriptures, not the tradition of
- speakerthe church. That's why the Westminster Confession, the Scot's Confession, the Helvetic and so forth begin with the Scriptures
- speakerbecause that was the point they were arguing. one of the points they were arguing then you see. Another point like in the Heidelberg
- speakerCatechism. As you know the Roman Catholics believe that if they didn't go for confession and absolution
- speakerof certain sins, and they died with those sins that had it. So what does the Heidelberg Catechism say? No.
- speakerI have this comfort in life or death that Jesus Christ is my savior. In other words the
- speakerchurches have been speaking to the problems of their day. The Westminster Confession spoke to the problems of its day. Remember
- speakerwhat was happening. The Divine Right of Kings was strong. The king ruled with absolute authority.
- speakerHe told the people when to go to war. He determined what were the rights of the people. He even decided
- speakerwhat would be the religious expression of the people. And then came along a group of Presbyterians and
- speakerindependents who began to rise in this independent feeling and said, "No. This is
- speakernot right." And then came the Cromwellian revolt, you remember, where Charles the First lost his head in the
- speakerRevolution of Sixteen Forty-Three, I believe it was. But ,the thing had gotten so much steam that the independence of
- speakercongregational steamrollered right over the Presbyterians. And, we had to backtrack and make up an alliance with the Anglicans to get back
- speakerinto power again. But, in the meantime, this great spirit of independence that God alone
- speakeris sovereign, not the king, you see. So, here's the sovereignty of God early in the Westminster
- speakerConfession. Boy, that was politically loaded! You see. So each confession was speaking to its day.
- speakerBarmen spoke to its day. Hitler says I'm going to make a single Reich Church. There is
- speakera ruling people the herren rasa. The German people through whom God has spoken
- speakerpeculiarly, you see. God speaks in history, and he has spoken particularly through the Germans. Therefore the Germans will be the
- speakerdeterminers of history for the next one thousand years. And some of the Christians in Germany, all too few,
- speakersaid, "No no. God does not speak just through German history and culture and warfare. He speaks
- speakerprimarily through Jesus Christ. And, the church does not exist for the service of the state. The church exists for
- speakerthe kingdom of Jesus Christ." Karl Barth, Martin Niemoller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer were men who
- speakersaid, "No" in the Barmen Declaration. They had to speak in their day against it. Now here's a day of
- speakerwarfare for us. We're in the midst of tremendous conflict. Look at right here in our own
- speakercountry. Racial conflict. We have killed more people in this century than the total number
- speakerin the last eight centuries put together, as I understand. This is a good time to talk about reconciliation, I
- speakerthink. What does the Gospel mean? So I think the theme is well chosen here. We must say something about
- speakerhow Jesus Christ brings men and warfare to reconciliation, that to me is a tremendously relevant
- speakermarriage. Bring it into the domestic life. Never has our nation known such divorce-ism,
- speakerirreconcilable, supposedly, feelings between husbands and wives. So what do we do? We
- speakercall it quits. We walk off in a huff. Divorce takes place leaving shattered lives all around. Is
- speakerreconciliation a word for our day? I think so. That is why we have to confess our faith. And when
- speakerwe're finished, our sons, our grandsons, will have to confess their faith in their situation.
- speakerWe must speak. Now that doesn't mean that we cast off everything that other creeds have said. We don't.
- speakerWhen our situation is like theirs, we take what they say seriously. And it becomes a guide to us today.
- speakerBut it doesn't become the only platform upon which we stand, you see. We aren't fighting many of the battles of
- speakerWestminster today. We're fighting some of them. And there, we accept the Westminster to ourselves
- speakerstrongly and we wield it as a sword of witness. But we have other problems. And they would be the first
- speakerones to push us to the fore and say confess. [Applause]
- speaker[Reeves, Kenneth E., Los Angeles] I'll say about three sentences. We confess anew because the
- speakeruniting assemblies of nineteen fifty-eight, the United Presbyterian Church of North America, the Presbyterian Church USA,
- speakerresponding to previous overtures and articles and acts said that there should be a committee appointed by the
- speakerfirst moderator of the new church to prepare a brief contemporary statement of faith. This is in line with
- speakerold United Presbyterian practice, which said that the church should respond to the Holy Spirit from time to time, confessing its faith.
- speakerAnd, so this is the historical background, the immediate historical background of a
- speakerconfession that and the proposition we have before us. [Ganse Little] Thank you very much, Ken Reeves. Now, Sir. Dick Thompson from Red River Presbytery,
- speakerMinnesota. Yes Mr Thompson. [Thompson, Richard W.] Two questions about the subscription questions. Regarding number two.
- speakerIn the interest of simplicity and trying to make this a working question. At ordination for
- speakerinstruction about the meaning of scripture in our eyes. I would be inclined to leave out the phrase "in the church Catholic,"
- speakerso that it would simply read "the scriptures as the authoritative witness to Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit
- speakerGod's word to you." And, I'd like to know what serious omission that would put, would do to the question if that
- speakerwas omitted? [Little, Ganse] Dr. Dowey? [Dowey, Edward A., Jr.] I think if you notice all the questions, there is the reference both to the church at large
- speakerand to the individual who owns this faith. In the first one you notice he's head over all the church, the church
- speakerCatholic. And in the next one is the church and the man. And the reason is that the minister is in the
- speakerwhole body of the church. And he acknowledges it both for the church in his office and personally.
- speakerSo I that's the reason I think would be wise to continue this. [Thompson, Richard W.] Would you go through that once more for me again.
- speaker[Dowey] Yeah. The the minister is not merely a private individual. He has an office in the church. And he
- speakerhe acknowledges this authority both for the church in which he teaches and as a person,
- speakeras an individual. And I think that's the reason in all of these questions why you have both references. I
- speakerdon't think it would be fatal if it were out, but I think it is very wise that the office of the ministry be seen
- speakeras the ministry of the ordained minister, particularly the pastor and preacher, has an office in the church
- speakerCatholic or the church universal, call it what you will. And then, that he own it personally.
- speaker[Thompson, Richard W.] This is. Are you saying that the Bible then is the same thing. It has its place as, as the authoritative witness to
- speakerJesus Christ for the whole church, as well as for this individual that is being ordained? [Dowey] That's right. And he's owning it both
- speakerfor with reference to his office in the church and his person. [Richard Thompson] Thank you my second question
- speakerwas referred to earlier regarding the seventh subscription
- speakerquestion. Would it detract any from the lifting up of the Book of Confessions if it was
- speakerexplicitly stated that the Scriptures also should be studied zealously and
- speakerfaithfully? [Dowey] I don't think it would. You want to put it in there, I, perfectly satisfactory. [Thompson] Thank you.
- speaker[Ganse Little] Number five I'm working alternately. I'm Edward Wilsey from the Presbytery of Baltimore. In reference to
- speakerlines which read "Reconciliation among nations becomes becomes peculiarly urgent as countries develop nuclear,
- speakerchemical and biological weapons." In our time, what we call
- speakerconventional high explosive weapons are our most important killer in war
- speakertoday. They are still under development. Could
- speakera representative of either committee discuss why this was not
- speakerincluded? [Ganse Little] You mean the more conventional weapons, which are still pretty murderous? Yes. All right. You get the
- speakerquestion? [Skinner, W. Shermanr] I didn't write this, but I assume that this is because, while conventional weapons are bad,
- speakerthese are extremely so. Does anybody from the drafting committee want to differ with that? Harry Davis [Davis, Harry R.] , the lawyer. [Davis] Probably if
- speakerI get the drift of that question, I think I do. I think the very end of that sentence may be the clue that conventional weapons do
- speakernot risk the annihilation of mankind in the sense of these new ones do. And therefore the
- speakernuclear, chemical and biological ones are the ones that are specified in that, are peculiarly urgent. Does that speak to the
- speakerquestion? Thank you. [Ganse Little] At microphone three. William. William Montgomery of the Iron Mountain Presbytery [Flat River, Missouri]. [Little]
- speakerYes, Mr Montgomery. [Montgomery speaking] Dr Dowey was so very clear on the matter of war
- speakerAnd how we must even risk the national security, if need be.
- speakerI thought you were exceedingly clear at this point. But I continue to be
- speakerconfused about the place of scripture despite much that has been sad. Normative
- speakerwitness seemed to be pretty pale. Authoritative witness is perhaps a little stronger. How can we
- speakerimprove upon the original infallible rule of faith and practice. An
- speakerinfallible rule makes us feel that we are obliged to do something. Simply a normative
- speakerwitness may inform us of something. At the risk of being a bit legalistic, a rule will
- speakerhelp us to draw a straight line to measure. A flexible rule is one that you
- speakersimply can not depend upon. May I have some enlightenment upon this? Is
- speakerthe Bible a, another book that we read with great interest and may be
- speakerhelped by, that informs us, or does it oblige us to
- speakerdo something and to be something? [Ganse Little] Dr. Lamont. [Lamont, Robert J.] I have a very real concern at this point also, sir.
- speakerLet me tell you what I think this means to me. I think this is a very, very high view of scripture. And in our
- speakerordination, we are placing ourselves under the authority of the scripture which we describe here. We are saying
- speakerthat the revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate. We say the Holy Spirit bears unique
- speakeran authoritative witness to him through the Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the Word of
- speakerGod written. Now, I don't know how to say this in, in any other way than,
- speakerthat would exalt the Scriptures, place them in a position of authority than the way we've said it.
- speakerWe are not saying here that it is the witness within the scriptures which are the Word of God written. We are identifying the
- speakerScriptures as the Word of God written. And we are promising to live under their authority.
- speakerAnd in obedience to the Christ whom they bear witness. And we are saying also that they are given under
- speakerthe, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And this is our attempt to grapple with the
- speakermultifaceted problem of stating inspiration. This is the Divine origin. Now, unless you are willing to
- speakerattribute to the Holy Spirit the possibility of err, you have a very very high view here of
- speakerthe kind of guidance which we believe God gave to those who wrote
- speakerand to the things which they presented and have been preserved and come to us as the Bible.
- speakerWe say they are not a witness among others but they are the witness without parallel. And if we are going to try to
- speakerconfess our faith in language other than that which has been used in which is precious to you and
- speakerto me. I rejoice over this statement.
