Chapter One of the Proposed Statement of Identity for the Presbyterian Church in America¹ (to be referred to hereafter as the PSI) is entitled "Scripture and Hermeneutics." As with other chapters in the PSI, the Westminster Confession of Faith is quoted numerous times. As we might expect, to the extent that the Confession of Faith is quoted, the PSI does provide an identity and a basis for consensus in the PCA. As a Presbyterian elder I have always believed that the Confession and Catechisms identified us quite well. However, now it seems ironic that after hundreds of years of Presbyterian history, and also that in light of the 350th anniversary this year of the Westminster Assembly, we now have to ask the question of who we are and what we believe.

Although the intentions of those who composed the PSI may have been good, the results of this document may do great harm by creating a spirit of alienation among the brethren in the PCA. My fear is that it will produce just the opposite effect as was intended by the authors. Two things frighten me very much. First, a line has been drawn in the PSI's explanatory paragraphs, and those who do not stand on the correct side are therefore outside of the PCA theologically. Even more ominous, the practical effect of this PSI is the production of an additional confession of faith, which supersedes the Westminster Confession.

Readers can appreciate in the PSI the commitment to Scripture as the inerrant and only infallible rule of faith and practice. The writers affirm that Scripture must interpret Scripture and they stress the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating our minds to a "saving understanding" of what God's Word teaches. They also point out the importance of God's covenant of grace that is seen throughout the Old and New Testaments. Throughout Scripture there is only one way for sinful man to be saved - that being through repentance and faith in Christ's finished work.

The major problems of the PSI arise in the paragraphs which follow the Confessional quotes which are intended to promote some particular interpretation of the Confession upon which all of us in the PCA might agree.

Chapter One fails dramatically to provide a consensus. On the contrary, from the perspective of those who adopt the principles of Theonomy (reconstructionists), it is an attack on a theological perspective that has been upheld by the PCA Courts as a position in accordance with the teachings of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is very unwise for men, independent of the Church courts, to determine theological correctness, especially when their conclusions contradict the position of the Courts themselves. It will be a sad day if this PSI ever comes before the General Assembly of the PCA for consideration, much less for approval. I pray that these brethren have more wisdom than to consider such a move. Probably, hope for peace in the PCA would have been better served if the PSI had never been produced.

At the bottom of page three of the PSI in the chapter on Scripture and Hermeneutics, the authors refer, in the context of emphasizing the importance of the Scriptures over Confessions, that we live in a "pluralistic age". Such a phrase assumes the equality of all religions under one civil government which is devoted to neutrality. Pluralism, in times past, referred to the acceptance of various Christian denominations living under one nation which was founded upon Christian law. Now, the concept of pluralism is used to promote the equality of all religions under some undefined 'natural law' which must be the final authority in civil matters.

Actually, there are only two religions, God's and Satan's. As Dr. Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary used to say, the choice is either theonomy or autonomy. Such is the case in the realm of civil government as well. Either God's law or man's law will reign. The question is not whether religion will influence civil government, but rather which religion. Will it be Christianity or will it be some modern form of Satan's idols such as Secular Humanism?

Item #11 of Chapter One deals more specifically with Theonomy.² The Confession is misinterpreted to suit an anti-theonomic position. It states, "We affirm that the general equity of the various civil laws given by God to Old Testament Israel still carries the force equivalent to moral law, but that the obligation to keep those civil laws, or those aspects of civil laws, which pertain strictly to the historical and political context of Old Testament Israel has expired."

Upon a first reading Item #11 sounds confessional. But, after further thought, it appears to reverse the position of the teaching of the Confession on the relevance of the "general equity" of "sundry judicial laws" given to the "body politic".

Notice how the authors of the PSI in Item #11 blend the concept of the general equity of the civil laws into the concept of the moral law, which under a pluralistic concept essentially neutralizes the relevance of applying the "general equity" to the "body politic." Moral law becomes a nice resting place (hiding place) for the general equity of the sundry judicial laws. But that is not what the Confession says. The Confession does not say that the general equity of the civil laws of Israel were swallowed up by the concept of a moral law that has nothing to do with the civil government in a pluralistic nation. The Confession implies just the opposite. The general equity is still applicable to civil government, even today, and should be studied in order that we might make application to the body politic in every nation.

Finally, to add insult to injury, the authors of Chapter One categorize Theonomy as a theological system as extreme as that which is commonly known as Dispensationalism. According to the PSI, Theonomy is as off base from orthodoxy as is Dispensationalism, just in a different direction. Dispensationalism is heretical. Are we to believe that Theonomy is heretical also? By categorizing the two together, this is the impression given by the authors.³

The judicial history of Theonomy in the PCA is clear. In 1979 at the 7th General Assembly, the Assembly spoke clearly in saying that "the General Assembly affirm(s) that no particular view of the application of judicial law for today should be made a basis for orthodoxy or excluded as heresy."⁴ This was later edited by the 11th General Assembly to include a reference for definitive purposes to chapter 19 of the Confession and Questions 93-150 of the Larger Catechism.⁵ In the Gunter vs. Central Floriaa Judicial Case of the 20th General Assembly, the final decision stated that, "We affirm in this decision that we are not making a judgment on the issue of theonomy...."⁶ Why then has a group of men acting independently of the Courts of the Church in developing a consensus statement for the PCA, taken a position contrary to the Courts of the Church?

_______________