Confusion in the PCA over "Papists"
January 2005
Friends,
The following story is from the online edition of "By Faith" (not "By
Faith Alone," please note), the denominational magazine of the Presbyterian
Church in America.
Editor’s note: Presbyteries
have begun voting on overtures to be considered by the 33rd General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church in America. The General Assembly will meet in the
Convention Center in Chattanooga, Tenn., June 14-17, 2005. Overture 1 is printed
below along with the Committee(s) to which it has been assigned for consideration
and recommendation to the General Assembly.
Overture: #1
From: Iowa Presbytery
To: Bills and Overtures
Title: “Define Term
‘Papists’ in WCF XXIV.3”
Whereas, The current language
of Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) XXIV.3, “… yet it is
the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess
the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other
idolaters: …” is ambiguous as to the definition of “papist”;
and
Whereas, It seems that
the context of the aforementioned passage infers that the central issue being
addressed is the matter of one’s soteriology; and
Whereas, Iowa Presbytery,
in seeking a clarification of the word “papist” as it applies
to the PCA’s constitution, was denied such a definition by the Committee
on Constitutional Business in April 2003, leaving the presbytery to decide
how best to interpret the word;
Therefore be it resolved
the Presbyterian Church in America shall annotate the word “Papists”
when it appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith with the following
explanatory footnote:
“Papists”
shall be defined as those who hold to an historic Roman Catholic soteriology,
not all those who are members of the Roman Catholic Church.
Adopted by Iowa Presbytery
at the stated meeting on 13 November 2004.
Attested by: /s/ Tom Bingham, Stated Clerk
Comment: Apparently the Iowa Presbytery sees nothing wrong with Christians marrying
Roman Catholics, so long as they do not "hold to an historic Roman Catholic
soteriology," that is, so long as they are Liberal Catholics. Question:
Don't they still fall into the categories of "infidels" or "idolaters"?
The PCA will have to redefine those terms as well in order to approve marriage
to Roman Catholics.
One wonders if this redefinition
of "papists" works the other way as well: Would the redefined word
"papist" now imply that Christians should not marry those who are
not members of the Roman Catholic Church but nevertheless "hold to an historic
Roman Catholic soteriology"? That might mean that some PCA members might
not be able to marry other PCA members.
Finally, we doubt that anyone
who does not know the meaning of the relatively simple term "papist"
knows the meaning of more complex "historic Roman Catholic soteriology."
Why doesn't the PCA, or
at least the Iowa Presbytery, just admit that it doesn't believe the Westminster
Confession, instead of redefining it?
John Robbins
The Trinity Foundation
January 26, 2005
For further reading go to
Review Archives at www.trinityfoundation.org
|
