The Westminster Confession, History and Theology

One section of the Westminster Confession deals with what might be termed freedom of interpretation. It reminds the reader that councils in the past have erred and even in the present do err. For that reason, the final authority in matters of controversy is the Holy Spirit as he speaks in the Scriptures. Now, when we claim to be Reformed we are taking our stance on a historical document's formulation of the truth which may (or may not) be directly applicable to the world of the 21st Century. Still, it is an historical document and there are several principles which apply to all theology formulated in the past:
1. We understand more in detail than those of the past because of the controversies which have taken place in the intervening period. We understand the implications of "Creator of heaven and earth" differently from those of the 16th Century.
2. The main body of doctrine does not change, though its expression may. It is possible, for example, to still see the doctrine of the Apostle's Creed in the Westminster Confession.
3. The Old Testament is the "root and trunk" of the New which extends, rather than replaces, the Old. So, the rule for interpretation is what was clearly required in the Old Testament is still required in the New unless it is changed or repealed by something in the New. The sacrifices for sin are completed by the sacrifice of Christ, and no longer required while the Sabbath rest is still present in the Kingdom of God all the way to the end of the Age.
4. The Kingdom of God is established through a people who worship and serve the king - namely the Church. It is present in this age and will be extended to everyone until "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess him Lord, to the glory of the Father."
5. Though the Westminster Confession is one of the most comprehensive expressions of Systematic Theology, it may be surpassed by later more accurate or fuller ones. The version accepted in the USA, for example, has modified one section to express the conviction of US Presbyterians that separation between Church and State is a good thing.
6. It is not arrogant to differ with great theologians of the past. They could, and did, make mistakes in their formulation of the truth. I have tremendous respect for the work of Martin Luther but, in the controversy between him and Ulrich Zwingli, I believe he was wrong to deny "hoc significat corpus meum" and to insist on "hoc est corpus meum" as the meaning of the words of institution of the Lord's Supper.
7. It is arrogant, however, to assume past theologians cannot speak wisdom to our age - yes, even Martin Luther and even in 2010. The Westminster Confession may have limitations that it has taken nearly 500 years to discover but its general principles will be true and (if changes are found to be necessary) only some details may need reviewing and altering.
Even such steps may not be required. The Confession allows for some freedom of interpretation so it may be necessary only to show that any (possibly) new insights are in agreement with the general tenor of the confession. As long as the insights do not contradict any major tenet, any adherents can legitimately still maintain their adherence to the Confession.
As far as Church courts are concerned, however, it is right in such cases (so things "might be done decently and in order") to note the variances in belief so the guiding nature of the confessional standards is maintained.