On several other threads this has been floated:




Areas I'd like to see addressed in the Confession:

Relationship of Confessional churches to those of other beliefs.

Statement on the Lordship Controversy (of course, there are already chapters on Saving Faith and Repentance Unto Life, but I think it might be possible to amend or add to them in such a way that they speak clearly to the problems created by Chafer/Ryrie/Hodges/Wilkin.)

Family and gender issues

Evangelism and Missions





What other areas would you like to see added?


Furthermore, if you had to write a draft of what would be a representative view for the reformed or the reformed baptist, please submit it here.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Well, this list was drafted by my best friend in college (you reading, Charlie?)...and I'm pretty much in agreement. I would especially like the last, "Evangelism and Missions."

Doctrine of the Holy Spirit may be relevant, as well.

What do you think of the PCUS 1903 emendation which follows? The EPC has adopted it; to my knowledge, no others have, though some have adopted chapter 34 on the Holy Spirit. Some say that this chapter 35 embraces Arminianism. However, I really like point 35.4.

You can find this, and chapter 34 on the Holy Spirit, here.

__________________
Pete
Missionary
The Free Presbyterian Church
I'm often in different countries...
but my home base is Pennsylvania

More in depth teachings on the apographs of Scripture.

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
“The Christian must not be of such a complying nature as to cut the coat of his profession according to the fashion of the times…" - William Gurnall

The Church needs an expanded statement on Biblical inerrancy and the nature and extent of Biblical authority. Maybe the Church should just adopt the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
Two recent confessional statements of faith have been attempted by Churches in Southeast Asia. In Indonesia, Dr. Stephen Tong's group, which I think is called the Gereja Reformed Injili Indonesia, has an additional confessional statement besides the three forms of unity. The Evangelical Reformed Church of Singapore, a congregation related to the Protesant Reformed Churches, wrote their own statement of faith back in the 1980s.

__________________
Thomas Yeutter,
Mason, MI
Member St. Patrick's Anglican Church, Comstock, MI

Ezra 7:10 For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to do it and to teach its statues in Isreal.

I would want something a bit better than the Chicago statement.

To say that copies are the Word of God to the extent that they represent the original, which doesn't exist, really doesn't say much for our copies.

I would love to see something more definitive regarding the copies. We are unable to compare them to the original, yet they are what we have in hand, so let's try a bit harder to make a definitive statement on them.

Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: Samuel Miller gives a succinct statement of this principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.”

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

There are a few things that may cross the line in Chap 35. John Murray did believe in the free offer to all men (if I remember correctly) but the language in Chap 35 seems to say that the Holy Spirit is calling any who hear the Word, which is certainly arminian.

Thanks for the link to Murray's critique by the way. As Murray said, Chap 35 definitely errs in not distinguishing between the general love of everyone and God's love for His elect (2 very different things).

__________________
Manley Beasley
Southern Baptist Convention
Lynchburg, VA

Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words

Yes; see Matthew Winzer's review of the Murray/Stonehouse view of the Free Offer at the link below.

http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner9-10&12.pdf

Interesting! Thanks.

Bad link.

__________________
Casey Bessette
Westminster OPC • West Suburbs of Chicago • My Blog: Paradise Regained

"It is part of the calling of the ekklesia to learn to know the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge and also to make known within the world of science 'the manifold wisdom of God' in order that the final end of theology, as of all things, may be that the name of the Lord is glorified. Theology and dogmatics, too, exist for the Lord's sake." — Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 46

It was working earlier; may be a Yahoo Groups things; my file originally so see my new PB blog entry,
Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse - The PuritanBoard

Despite necessary rewritings of points 1-3 of chapter 35 to avoid the intentional inclusion or unintended implication, whichever it be, of Arminian teaching, I think that point 4 is well stated.

I would also like to see a clear section on the role of the Mosaic law.

No revisions, expansions, clarifications, or any other changes can or should be made to the WCF. For to posit such a need would be to suggest that the WCF is imperfect, in as much as it would be an admission that it doesn't articulate everything we need to know about God from the Bible. And as many of this site's best have pointed out, the Confession is so true, and so faithful to Scripture, that for the Confession to be inadequate would be the same thing as saying the Scriptures are inadequate.

So all of you wanting to expand or clarify or (whatever) the Confession: REPENT!

__________________
Ben
Sanford, NC
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

A confession can be a unifying asset or a divisive liability. Additions without consensus will undoubtedly make it divisive.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Seems to me that a confessional statement is inherently both unifying and divisive at the same time. It serves to rally and unify those who are in agreement while serving as a bone of contention with regards to those who disagree.

I was tempted to take this as a joke. That doesn't sound like "Sola Scriptura" to me.

The Bible contains what we need to know about God. The WCF sums it up. A summary of the Scripture is, by definition, inadequate as an expression of what God wants us to know. This isn't to say it's bad or even mediocre! To the contrary, the WCF is a great summary. But it's just that -- a summary.


Oh, by the way important: my last post wasn't referring to revising the original confession, but chapter 35, which isn't actually in the WCF as we have it here on PB. It's an addition considered to be tainted by Arminianism. I was saying that its inclusion would require rewriting.

Carry out this idea consistently over a range of issues, as is addressed in a confession, and the only rallying will be the head of the home calling his family to join with him in maintaining his particular interpretation of Scripture.

Got another link. Or just Google it?

Brother,that is an EXCELLENT point!

Every extra sentence added thus becomes another hurdle that could trip up people who would like to sign onto the confession.

So, there does seem to be a virtue in keeping confessions purposely broad and simple it seems.


I guess another question then would be, "If we could throw out any portion of the confession" which would it be. But onceit is written, then it is written and binding, but folks are free to vary somewhat in the realm of the unwritten.