The Confessions are out-dated?

Pergamum · #1 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 12:32 PM

What does one make of this paragraph:

"The confession is the summary of our (i.e. the institutional church’s) interpretation of Scripture. If our views have changed our confession should reflect that. It is a bit complicated when we haven’t confessed our faith anew for several hundred years. This is another good reason for a new confession. Our forefathers wrote confessions about every 5-6 years in the 16th-17th centuries. They would be shocked that we’re still using confessions from the 16th and 17th centuries."

Good? Bad? How do we act on this if this is true?

jfschultz · #2 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What does one make of this paragraph:

"The confession is the summary of our (i.e. the institutional church’s) interpretation of Scripture. If our views have changed our confession should reflect that. It is a bit complicated when we haven’t confessed our faith anew for several hundred years. This is another good reason for a new confession. Our forefathers wrote confessions about every 5-6 years in the 16th-17th centuries. They would be shocked that we’re still using confessions from the 16th and 17th centuries."

Good? Bad? How do we act on this if this is true?

Like the PCUSA (UPCUSA back then) in 1967, it would let them finally be honest about their departure from the historic faith and doctrine.

ericfromcowtown · #3 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 01:08 PM

I am of two minds on this one:

I think that traditions and scriptural interpretations should be open to questioning and challenge. We should have good answers, when the next generation asks "why," that go beyond "because that's what the confession says." I am open to the possibility (even if improbable) that sometimes our answers and the confessions might come up wanting.

However, I think that the benefit of the doubt should always rest with tradition. Our generation isn't the first to wrestle with doctrinal issues and it would be ignorant for us to assume we have a better understanding of scripture than our forefathers did 500 years ago, simply because we have Ipods and Blackberries. It's simply a waste of resources/energy to re-invent the wheel every generation.

The answer lies (

) in a balance between the two.

Guido's Brother · #4 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 01:12 PM

This is related to the subject of my dissertation. In the 1970s and 1960s, the same kinds of sentiments were being expressed in the Christian Reformed Church (I wouldn't be surprised if the author of this quote is CRC). Among the "problems" with the existing confessions was the fact that they didn't say anything (or very little) about missions. This led to the development of the contemporary testimony, "Our World Belongs to God." Because of the remaining confessional element in the CRC, the contemporary testimony did not completely displace the Three Forms of Unity, but could only be added as a supplement.

As to the quote:

1) The author assumes that the Confessions are a summary of the church's interpretation of Scripture, placing the emphasis on the subjective. That's not the classical Reformed understanding of the nature of a confession.

2) If the church's views have changed (i.e. the church has departed from what it confesses), yes, the honest thing to do is to dump the confessions.

3) Re: writing confessions every 5-6 years. That's total nonsense. The Belgic Confession (the subject of my dissertation) was written in 1561 and was immediately adopted by the Reformed churches in the Lowlands, probably even before it was published. The Reformed churches in that area did not write another confession every 5-6 years after that. The Belgic Confession was their Confession, along with the Heidelberg Catechism. Eventually, the Canons of Dort were added as well.

Joshua · #5 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 01:16 PM

I wouldn't say the Standards are outdated. However, I would prefer that people form a new Confession as opposed to importing their own modernist interpretation(s) thereunto. For example, the 2nd Commandment meaning you can't make images of God the Father, but pictures supposing to be Jesus are okay.

ADKing · #6 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 01:21 PM

Rather than re-inventing the wheel because people do not understand their confessions, faithful ministers in our day need to strive anew to show their people that the Confession is indeed biblical and why it matters practically and experientally. We need to understand our standards but not merely as dry doctrinal assertions with no contact to our lives (as some falsely do), but as the summary of the Word of God that is quick and active and sharper than any two-edged sword. The Confession should be exciting because it clearly and succinctly tells us what the Bible says! What can be more relevant than that?

Christusregnat · #7 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What does one make of this paragraph:

" They would be shocked that we’re still using confessions from the 16th and 17th centuries."
Good? Bad? How do we act on this if this is true?

This part, at least is total nonsense. The Reformers recognized, recited, argued on the basis of, symbols, canons and creeds from the 2nd Century (Apostles Creed), 4th Century (Nicene Creed), 5th Century (Chalcedon & Orange), etc.

Were they shocked that people still believed in these creeds? NO! They believed them to be totally relevant, and considered people who departed from them to be heretical spirits. The better question is, what would they think of the person who wrote this quotation.

Cheers,

Adam

Poimen · #8 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What does one make of this paragraph:

" They would be shocked that we’re still using confessions from the 16th and 17th centuries."
Good? Bad? How do we act on this if this is true?

This part, at least is total nonsense. The Reformers recognized, recited, argued on the basis of, symbols, canons and creeds from the 2nd Century (Apostles Creed), 4th Century (Nicene Creed), 5th Century (Chalcedon & Orange), etc.

Were they shocked that people still believed in these creeds? NO! They believed them to be totally relevant, and considered people who departed from them to be heretical spirits. The better question is, what would they think of the person who wrote this quotation.

Cheers,

Adam

Why else would the Heidelberg Catechism, for example, include an exposition of the Apostle's Creed 1100 (+/-) years or so after it was written? (which, btw, was also a common practice of medieval creeds and theological works).

Bygracealone · #9 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 02:33 PM

I love the Westminster Standards and I wouldn't say they're outdated. Truth is eternal in nature as it's rooted in our God; so, truth is never outdated.

That said, I've been persuaded by others, that IF a BETTER confession of faith could be put together and IF it would result in more unity among the Reformed Churches, I would be in favor of a new confession. I'm reminded, from the Scottish heritage of my denomination, that our Scottish forefathers were willing and, in fact, did this very thing in giving up the Scots Confession for the Westminster Confession.

Christusregnat · #10 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 02:38 PM

WAIT, WAIT! I figured out that the quotation was misquoted.... I've fixed the relevant word (easy mistake to make).

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What does one make of this paragraph:
"The confession is the summary of our (i.e. the institutional church’s) interpretation of Scripture. If our views have changed our confession should CORRECT ~~reflect~~ that."

Pergamum · #11 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 02:49 PM

Can someone agree with this quote and still be confessional?

Joshua · #12 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Can someone agree with this quote and still be confessional?

I suppose, according to their own newly derived confession, they can.

Pergamum · #13 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 02:57 PM

I guess they have to be unconfessional until they can change the confession to fit their new convcitions...at least for a while.

Christusregnat · #14 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 02:59 PM

Pergamum,

I suppose it would depend on one's definition of confessional.

The attitude in this quotation reflects a non-confessional approach. For instance, when the earlier confessions were drawn up, they were intended to build upon what the fathers had said previously, but not to draw in the idea of "contemporary = true". This is a humanistic, nay, evolutionary way of looking at truth. The current is true, the "out-dated" is not true. Truth, in other words, is evolving.

Every generation thinks that knowledge was born when it was; man is a fool. This man appears to be infatuated with modern man. Modern man, in my opinion, has yet to even attain to the basic fundamentals that the people of the reformation attained to. To try to create a new confession would be like a bunch of 5th graders trying to create a new constitution for the United States; rather jejune.

Cheers,

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Can someone agree with this quote and still be confessional?

DMcFadden · #15 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 06:22 PM

It also depends on what the new confession said. If it used more contemporary phrasing to say the same thing and added other elements left off from the older confession, how would that be bad in principle? However, I have seen little done since the WCF, LBCF, Savoy, and 3FU that impresses me as being of the same caliber.

Or, with a little historical latitude and tongue partly planted in cheek as the background on my computer destop proclaims . . .

Christusregnat · #16 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Or, with a little historical latitude and tongue partly planted in cheek as the background on my computer destop proclaims . . .

Ssssssweet!

DMcFadden · #17 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:24 PM

Today is Calvin's birthday, don't you know?

Christusregnat · #18 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:30 PM

Yup, and next year is the 500th anniversary celebrations in Noyon and Geneva!!!!

We should get a bunch of PBers to go and do our own tour!

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Today is Calvin's birthday, don't you know?

Presbyterian Deacon · #19 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

It also depends on what the new confession said. If it used more contemporary phrasing to say the same thing and added other elements left off from the older confession, how would that be bad in principle? However, I have seen little done since the WCF, LBCF, Savoy, and 3FU that impresses me as being of the same caliber.

Or, with a little historical latitude and tongue partly planted in cheek as the background on my computer destop proclaims . . .

I like that! I think it would make good t-shirt!

toddpedlar · #20 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Today is Calvin's birthday, don't you know?

yup... I always know when Calvin's birthday is, because I only have to recall our anniversary date and
then go back one day

and yes, that IS the order in which I remember these things!