As we all know, Brock Organ of AvC frequently relies on this document, The Westminster Confession of Faith, and presents it as "objective truth". Brock also likes to dismiss all other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on "existential premises". The aim of this post is to discredit Brock's claim by showing that 1) The Westminster Confession of Faith is not objective truth and 2) The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Brock so despises, thus exposing his monumental hypocrisy.
First, how do we know the Confession is not objective truth? This one's easy. The Confession cannot be objectively true because it is an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context of 1st century Middle East. Rather, it was written by so-called "Divines" who were, in fact, a bunch of Puritan clergy organized for the purpose of reforming The Church of England. It was the abolition of Episcopalian for Calvinism in the Church of England. Basically, that means favoring one interpretation (Calvinism) over another (Episcopalian). Neither of which can be objectively true by virtue of the fact that they are "interpretations."
Having said that, how does that effect the veracity of the Bible? Even if one believes that the "propositions" of the Bible are objectively true (which they are not), the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible and thus a distortion of perceived "objective truth" (this begs the question as to why there is a need for such a document if the Bible is already "objectively true"). As an example of the Confession's methodology, I'd like to look at one chapter entitled "Of Creation":
"I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good."[1]
That is an interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 and therefore a distortion of the perceived "objective truth" of the Bible--the "word of God." And, it brings me to my second point.
Brock is fond of repeating the phrase "existentialism is untenable." Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the Westminster Confession relied on in Reforming the Church of England (emphasis mine). As a rhetorical question, why would one need a reformation of objective truth? Does objective truth need reforming? Clearly, not. Yet, the synods are constantly revising and reforming their own document. For example, The Association of Reformed Presbyterian Churches states in reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith this qualification:
"Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster as the same is received by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church including amendments approved by the General Synods of 1959, 1976, 1984, and 2001."[2]
It is strange "objective truth" would need so many amendments and revisions. Unless, of course, it is not objective truth. Rather, it is the existential interpretation of rambling morons who think they "know" objective truth.
What does this all mean? It means Brock is a hypocritical existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of observation he uses.
No comments:
Post a Comment