Thread: The Confessions are out-dated?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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).

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.

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

Adam

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."

Can someone agree with this quote and still be confessional?

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

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

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Can someone agree with this quote and still be confessional?

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 . . .

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!

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

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

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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

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!

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!

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?

The problem is that 'contemporary phrasing', by definition is less accurate that the language of the Reformed confessions. Clarity will suffer with the use of watered down modern English. IMO, it is better to stick with the confessions as they are and invest in a trusty 2 volumn Oxford English Dictionary w/magnifying glass.

It's usually the case that folk who think the confessions are outdated usually also think the Bible is outdated. Only in the case of the Bible I think they do update it every 5-6 years.

First, biblical doctine is never outdated. Second, the grain of truth is there. I am sure the westminster divines would have no problem seeing the Westminster Confession of faith translated into other languages besides Latin and old english (my church is French speaking and our denomination in Canada made its own translation). Perhaps its my youth but if you have all the truths of the confessions in another document call it Flipper's confession of Faith for all I care.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

They would be shocked that we’re still using confessions from the 16th and 17th centuries."[/I]

I don't think they would be shocked, but they might be surprised. There is no reason, in principle, why faithful Christians can't write new confessions or catechisms. After all, the Westminster divines, and the others, had no problem writing secondary standards in their day, even though some already existed.

Why re-invent the wheel?

I have no problem with a "new" confession, so long as it adheres to the same principles of strict Scriptural intepretation to support all of its points.

If done properly, an updated confession would have exactly the same content as the original WCF. It would be interesting to see if it is organized differently - starting from scratch, would everything be categorized the same way? The truths would be the same, but the structure might be different/better...

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It's usually the case that folk who think the confessions are outdated usually also think the Bible is outdated. Only in the case of the Bible I think they do update it every 5-6 years.

J.I. Packer called the Westminster Confession of Faith "...the maturest fruit of the Reformation...."

Given the state of many Church bodies today I'm glad we still have a Confession that accurately summarizes the principle doctrines of Scripture. I don't think the Westminster assembly was inspired but I think we can still be thankful to God for the Providence in the formation of our Reformed Confessions just as we can thank Him for the major creeds of Christendom. Do we need another Nicene Creed, another definition of Chalcedon? Unless there's some major point of doctrine that hasn't been settled by our forebears wrestling with them then why do we think it's not useful unless it's new? Why, with all our modern proclivities to "be our own man" would we think we'd do better than they?

In fact, given the caliber of men that formed these, I think we'd be hard pressed to find an Assembly as talented and pious as the men who undertook our Confessions. I actually think the reality of life before pain killers and modern medicine and the ease of modernity made for much more sober and diligent men. We have far too many forces in our culture and society today that want to pull theology away from the sobriety it deserves.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Do we need another Nicene Creed, another definition of Chalcedon? Unless there's some major point of doctrine that hasn't been settled by our forebears wrestling with them then why do we think it's not useful unless it's new?

I guess if the church finally came to a consensus on the relationship between Christ's return and the millenium, that could be added. (Like that is ever going to happen )

I think that in theory it could be a very good thing to supplement the Confession. I say in theory because I don't think we are in a creed writing age, and opening up the confessions would be akin to opening up the US Constitution - you'd just get insanity.

But I would like to see some solid specific confessional statements re: sexuality (male/female roles) for example. It's not that the Confession is wrong, on this issue, just not as direct, since it was not a major issue then.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

I think that in theory it could be a very good thing to supplement the Confession. I say in theory because I don't think we are in a creed writing age, and opening up the confessions would be akin to opening up the US Constitution - you'd just get insanity.

Right. That's my thought too. It seems that modernism has made it nearly impossible to come to theological consensus. The Confessions sort of connect us back to a time when it wasn't considered to be a bad thing to desire to think like everybody else. Today there are few sins left but chief among them is to be narrow minded. Our culture has brilliant men but far too few that are willing to submit that brilliance to any authority but themselves.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

But I would like to see some solid specific confessional statements re: sexuality (male/female roles) for example. It's not that the Confession is wrong, on this issue, just not as direct, since it was not a major issue then.

In the RPCNA, this is what we do with our Testimony. Though not perfect, it does attempt to speak confessionally about contemporary issues... So, we keep the original version of the WCF and supplement it with our Testimony. Again, not perfect, but the intent is what you've described above.

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."

Pergamum,

Why don't you reveal the source of this quote? I think I know who said this and if I am correct, there will be a lot of shocked people who have already replied and virtually condemned the statement.

I would say that the person who made the comments should join up with the PCUSA. They have 11 to choose from.

Confession and Repristination « Heidelblog

Not surprising. The Confessions do not represent a redemptive historical hermeneutic, and are clearly 6/24 in explicit statement and in hermeneutical principal. Issues like this are exactly why we don't need a new confession.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Confession and Repristination « Heidelblog

That's strange. I did a search for the "exact wording" of Scott's post and only this Puritanboard thread came up.

I can disagree with a man and not condemn the statement. In fact, what Scott wrote in his article I agree with. I just don't know how we would end up with a new Confession today given the current circumstances. I'd be interested in a suggestion in how that would be practically possible.

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

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."

Pergamum,

Why don't you reveal the source of this quote? I think I know who said this and if I am correct, there will be a lot of shocked people who have already replied and virtually condemned the statement.

I'm not shocked! Dr Clark has been known to make interesting statements. But then again one would need to read a lot more than just this one quote to get a good handle on where Dr. Clark is coming from. Far be it from me to tell a Professor of History why confessions were written every 5-6 years during the 16th and 17th centuries. He knows why. The Reformed faith was in its infancy and what the Church believed needed to be established as opposed to other theologies, ie; the Canons of Dordt in response to the Remonstrants or the Standards in an attempt to establish a single confession for the Churches England, Scotland and Ireland.

But this comment taken by itself is inadequate and leaves a lot to be desired. Updating for the sake of up dating just because the churches of the 16th and 17th century did it is not much of an answer and that's why it has gotten the response it has. Yes, some hold to rather interesting views, but that does not mean that the current Confessions need to be scrapped and new ones take their place.

But then again Dr Clark knows full well that Confessions can be changed and have been. The Church has established a process for doing that very thing.

Full quote from website here:

Hi Jamie,

This is an excellent question. The short answer is yes, so long as the church does it openly. 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. Don’t get me wrong. We should still confess substantially (and extensively) the same faith but, in the case of creation for example, I don’t think that we are as worried about a renewal of Augustine’s view (or the view the divines believed he held which was making a comeback) of instantaneous creation as they were. In the case of the Framework view, it’s been around for at least 50 years and nothing bad has happened. This is why WSC tolerates multiple approaches to reading Gen 1-2. We should confess what’s essential: a real, historic creation, a historic Adam and fall, the reality and truth of divine providence and concursus, the reality of nature (as opposed to the Platonists and Gnostics who deny it) and so forth.

The churches adopt and receive a confession with “intent.” This spirit of adoption colors the way a confession is read. The American Presbyterians in the 20th century have adopted the Westminster Standards to allow for a diversity of views on creation.

Further, there is evidence that the divines didn’t necessarily intend to bind the church to 6/24 creation — despite the fact that most of them likely believed in it.

It’s not that original intent is not important. It is! In the FV controversy original intent is crucial to defeating their subjective, self-serving, and radical re-interpretation of the confession.

There is also a distinction to be made as to those things that are of the essence of the Reformed faith and those things that are not. To hold this or that view of creation does not materially affect the Reformed faith. To hold this or that view of justification does.

In reading the actual response from Dr. Clark, I found the next statement in his quote (not included in the quote from the original post) to be helpful in trying to understand what he's saying:

"Don’t get me wrong. We should still confess substantially (and extensively) the same faith [of our current confessions]..."