Being Confessional

Reformed Baptist · #1 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 04:39 PM

I'm going to poke around on the net for answer, but I was wondering if anyone was willing to share what it means to be "confessional" in the reformed sense. Thanks.

Scott1 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 04:51 PM

My layman's understanding of this is a written, substantial systematic theology, supported and documented by Scripture which provides a basis for peace and purity of the church.

I use the term "substantial" to mean it would cover most all of the historically contested major doctrines of Scripture, but is not intended to cover every doctrine.

Included would be an attempt to substantiate each proposition in some way with direct Scripture reference. I suppose this means it combines the benefits of being both systematic and literal at the same time.

Contra_Mundum · #3 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 09:26 PM

Short and sweet, everyone is "confessional", small-c. Can't help it, everyone believes the Bible teaches something: the only question is what?

To be "Confessional" is to put that belief in a fixed and public form, one which can be evaluated and even agreed with by those of the same conviction. To be Confessional is to be open to inspection:

2Co 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

I think that verse says all that needs saying. As armourbearer (on this board) has said, to refuse to put your doctrine on paper is actually a form of dissembling. If it isn't written down, then one cannot accuse me of deviating from "what we believe the Bible teaches." It becomes very hard to convict someone of misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture, of pitting one part of Scripture against another, of failing to be firm on "cardinal" doctrines.

Usually, we go a step farther, and desire to be found in a tradition of Confession. So, a truly confessional church will confess the historic Ecumenical Creeds of the first five centuries of this era. And all of us on the PB must consent to join themselves to one of several Reformation era Confessions that is venerable and proven.

Reformed Baptist · #4 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Short and sweet, everyone is "confessional", small-c. Can't help it, everyone believes the Bible teaches something: the only question is what?

To be "Confessional" is to put that belief in a fixed and public form, one which can be evaluated and even agreed with by those of the same conviction. To be Confessional is to be open to inspection:

2Co 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

I think that verse says all that needs saying. As armourbearer (on this board) has said, to refuse to put your doctrine on paper is actually a form of dissembling. If it isn't written down, then one cannot accuse me of deviating from "what we believe the Bible teaches." It becomes very hard to convict someone of misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture, of pitting one part of Scripture against another, of failing to be firm on "cardinal" doctrines.

Usually, we go a step farther, and desire to be found in a tradition of Confession. So, a truly confessional church will confess the historic Ecumenical Creeds of the first five centuries of this era. And all of us on the PB must consent to join themselves to one of several Reformation era Confessions that is venerable and proven.

Thanks for that explaination. I was seeing this term, confessional, being used to give definition to "Reformed" and so I wondered as to the reason. At any rate, by your definition I am "confessional" inasmuch as I hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith inasmuch as it holds to the Scripture. But I find it holding to the Scriptures truly on all but a few areas, which areas are only grey areas for me.

One question. What do you mean by "confessions that is (are) venerable and proven." ?

Contra_Mundum · #5 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:26 PM

Geoff,
There's a sense in which as a layman, you are (quite properly) only giving provisional consent to the confession of your church, so far as it accords with Scripture, to which you give FULL, implicit as well as explicit consent.

I think you can see that for office-bearers in a particular church, they are "signing on" to the confession in a more defined sense. They are agreeing 1) that they have already studied and become convinced to believe these expressions to be BIBLICAL, and 2) they are agreeing not to TEACH contrary to what is already the "common" set of beliefs of that particular church, as codified.

By doing this, that church--its people and its government--are attempting to ensure that this church STAYS "Confessional", and doesn't go off into a different (perhaps unwritten and ungoverning) confession. Written Confessions protect the flock.

The Confessions we use on this board to screen prospective membership have been in continuous use by Bible-believing churches since the Reformation era. They are old and respectable (i.e venerable) and time has tested them--churches holding them truly, not in name only, have adhered to the Faith and used them in matters of judgment (i.e they have proven their worth).

Pergamum · #6 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 01:42 AM

How strongly do we have to hold to the confessions? Can you explain strict or loose subscriptionism?

For instance, I am not sure if the Pope is THE Antichrist, though he certainly fits that category...I don't think Scripture is clear enough for any confession to speak with authority on that subject. A "well...maybe" is about all I think can be affirmed on that subject on the personal identity of Antichrist. How would I be classified, though I love the 1689 and use it as a good reference to what I believe.

Also, can "Confessionalism" be an attitude as well? I.e. the problems of the church can be solved if we just get more Confessional, etc.

Contra_Mundum · #7 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 02:53 AM

Pergy,
When one joins here, he professes an allegiance to one of the Confessions. And I don't think we have ever tried to define that allegiance as complete adherence to every proposition. What we have said is: DON'T argue for an anti-Confessional position. Where different Confessions contradict, we institute forums just to hold those debates.

And, I think it goes without saying that anyone who identifies with a Confession just to get on board here, and disagrees with even 10% of said Confession is at the least being dishonest with himself, and misrepresenting himself to join the conversation. He ISN'T Confessional, he just agrees loosely with about 80-90% of it. "But don't try to pin me down on anything."

In the church, I have to say that a truly loosy-goosy subscription is a recipe for church corruption. Soon, you'd have people who believed in the "spirit" of the Confession, but really very few of its propositions making decisions for that church, teaching bald heresy, and justifying it with a Bible verse, and daring anyone to discipline them. "Hey, I'm just teaching my conscience-held interpretations of the Bible! Don't judge me."

Would strict subscription prevent corruption? Not by itself. I think it might come slower. But liars always SAY they believe this or that. If they expected discipline, they'd keep their lies hidden. But for churches with the stomach for discipline, the tool is there. And I think, overall, the church benefits from a strict/stricter stance. This gets to that point you made about "confessionalism" sometimes being an attitude, a panacea.

"System" subscription tries to fence-straddle. It tries to avoid committing to the propositions of the Confession, but formally do more than a nod to the "spirit" of the Confession. In the end, I don't think there is anything concrete there, and so no logical limit to the "downslide" toward wider and wider acceptance of divergence.

If your confession teaches that the Pope is Antichrist, and you think differently, in similar situations in my church the candidate is supposed to make known his differences with the Confession, disagreements with its propositions, and then let the presbyters judge whether those "exceptions" are tolerable. Can this plane still fly, even though Joe Preacher has a problem with the seat cushions? Standard aerlion configuration? What about if he wants to ditch the landing gear since it is superfluous to the important reason for which the plane actually exists--flying? Sound plausible?

Maybe each generation needs to "recover" the church's confession, and own it for themselves. But that doesn't mean they have to write it afresh. We should recognize there is a benefit to the fact that we don't have to fight the Arians inside the church anymore. We just define them (and today's JWs) as anti-Nicaea and therefore outside the church, and move on to the more pressing battles of today.

Semper Fidelis · #8 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Wabbit

When one joins here, he professes an allegiance to one of the Confessions. And I don't think we have ever tried to define that allegiance as complete adherence to every proposition. What we have said is: DON'T argue for an anti-Confessional position. Where different Confessions contradict, we institute forums just to hold those debates.

And, I think it goes without saying that anyone who identifies with a Confession just to get on board here, and disagrees with even 10% of said Confession is at the least being dishonest with himself, and misrepresenting himself to join the conversation. He ISN'T Confessional, he just agrees loosely with about 80-90% of it. "But don't try to pin me down on anything."

Well said Bruce. Let me put it more eloquently.

As I've noted here: What?! This is a Reformed Board?!, we're a group of people that don't pee in our own pool. We agree to allow people on the board that might not be as strict in their own pool but as long as you don't foul our water then you're welcome to enjoy the water. Secretly, you might desire to do so but as long as you resist the urge then we don't have any reason to blow any whistles.

Just don't get bent out of shape when the lifeguard is telling you to get out of the pool because the water is turning purple around you and getting warm. There are plenty of pools down the street that love to allow that kind of activity.

We're peculiar here. We tell people we're peculiar on the front door and, as I've noted, if you don't like being around Reformed folk here then nobody is making you swim in our pool.

Scott1 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How strongly do we have to hold to the confessions? Can you explain strict or loose subscriptionism?

For instance, I am not sure if the Pope is THE Antichrist, though he certainly fits that category...I don't think Scripture is clear enough for any confession to speak with authority on that subject. A "well...maybe" is about all I think can be affirmed on that subject on the personal identity of Antichrist. How would I be classified, though I love the 1689 and use it as a good reference to what I believe.

Also, can "Confessionalism" be an attitude as well? I.e. the problems of the church can be solved if we just get more Confessional, etc.

You are to be commended for carefully considering your confession!

Remember, you are taking a vow before God, witnessed by men as to what you believe and God does not take vows lightly. Being an officer doesn't only mean you have come to tell people what you believe but that you have carefully considered what the Confession teaches, and its Scriptural basis and that you understand its context within the Confession as a whole.

A "Confession" is said to summarize doctrine contained in Scripture. A "Confession" is not infallible and is suboordinate to Scripture- that is why a "Confession" can be amended. Amendment is intentionally a careful and deliberative process with a high level of agreement required, but it is possible. The idea from "semper reformanda" (always reforming to conform with the authority of Scripture) is that the church looks at her doctrine and practice every generation to make sure it is conforming with Scripture (not with the world system, its culture or the ideas of men).

In the PCA, we have what some call "good faith" subscription. In my understanding of its application in the denomination it means that an officer must subscribe to every proposition and statement contained in the Confession unless an "exception" is granted by a Presbytery. Those "exceptions" must be:

1) stated publically
2) put on the record
3) voted on by a peer group of teaching elders (presbytery) and either granted or not granted

It is my understanding in our denomination at the present time, presbyteries also decide whether the exception can be taught or not.

Exceptions granted are subject to review at the denomination-wide level through a records committee and potentially through church courts, perhaps in other ways as well. While we are still working through some relatively new procedure on this, this seems to be serving its purpose of preserving the peace and purity of the church. It has helped presbyteries to be very very careful in granting exceptions.

So, does this mean that candidates are "mixing and matching" their doctrines and "seeing what they can get by with"? Not at all, from what I can tell. It's a serious and fearsome thing to take an exception at all. Very few are taken but where they are, the candidate has done his research and is well persuaded of his position, within the context of other Scripture and within the context of the rest of the Confession.

Although this has often been a major issue for discussion within the church, "scruples" were historically permitted if not disruptive to the system and everything else about the candidate confirmed his qualification and fitness for high church office.

Understand, of course, members of the church do not have to understand, far less agree to every statement of doctrine in the Confession. They do not take a vow of agreement with the doctrine summarized in the Confession. Members do vow to learn the church's doctrine (as contained in the Confession, suboordinate to the Scriptures) and submit to the church's authority and discipline.

Brad · #10 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

So, does this mean that candidates are "mixing and matching" their doctrines and "seeing what they can get by with"? Not at all, from what I can tell.

Boy, I sure hope that is true in the whole. I have seen particular cases where it appears not so to be.

Reformed Baptist · #11 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Geoff,
There's a sense in which as a layman, you are (quite properly) only giving provisional consent to the confession of your church, so far as it accords with Scripture, to which you give FULL, implicit as well as explicit consent.

I think you can see that for office-bearers in a particular church, they are "signing on" to the confession in a more defined sense. They are agreeing 1) that they have already studied and become convinced to believe these expressions to be BIBLICAL, and 2) they are agreeing not to TEACH contrary to what is already the "common" set of beliefs of that particular church, as codified.

By doing this, that church--its people and its government--are attempting to ensure that this church STAYS "Confessional", and doesn't go off into a different (perhaps unwritten and ungoverning) confession. Written Confessions protect the flock.

The Confessions we use on this board to screen prospective membership have been in continuous use by Bible-believing churches since the Reformation era. They are old and respectable (i.e venerable) and time has tested them--churches holding them truly, not in name only, have adhered to the Faith and used them in matters of judgment (i.e they have proven their worth).

EDIT: I should have read through all the posts before posting. Please don't feel the need to reply if you already answer what I asked below.

Thanks for the further clarification. This may not be the appropriate place, but I notice that many in the Reformed churches, mine own included, do not necessarily subscribe to the part about the papacy being the Man of Sin. I am not bringing this up to debate whether it is or not. But this is an example where there seems to be, on the part of the elders and/or deacons, a departure from the confession.

Does this mean there is some liberty of conscience allowed in confessional churches? Even among the "clergy" (my baptist nature shudders at the word, hahaha).