Thread: New confessions?

Post has been edited/deleted

I started this thread quite a while ago: now, however, in order to prevent any confusion that could arise, I've just decided to simply eliminate the opening post. We like our confessions; and they are fundamentally and suitable adequate to answer the theological climate of today.

I think this topic certains around identity and the labels people use to self-identify.

Much of any ideological battle is the fight over who gets to make the definitions.



The Reformed are reformed, it seems because they hold to the confessions which are reformed. Not only do they hold to and agree with and love the confessions, but many refer to themselves as Confessional, often with a big C.

I am still investigating the similarity or differences between the terms "holding to a confession" and being "confessional". I sense that there is a difference between "holding to a confession" and being "Confessional" which seems to be a methodology and an attitude as well as a love of our great confessions.



It would appear that the phrase "always reforming" would also include the confessions, unless of course we think that they are perfect. Here are two further thoughts on this...

(1) In the least many of the reformed would agree theoretically to a modern re-working of the confessions. I think the reformed baptists are updating the 1689 into modern english and the version of the Shorter Catechism that I memorized used modern english. I support these initiatives.

(2) But, any substantial re-working of a confession, however, is a really BIG deal and should not be done lightly (or at all, unless a tight case can be made that this is absolutely necessary).




A related question is this:

Do the Reformed churches determine what is Reformed by their confessions, or do the Reformed confessions determine which churches are Reformed?

If the Reformed churches determine what is Reformed in their confessions, then the PCA should be able to say that Sabbatarianism is not an essential. They can even revise their Confessions to eliminate it.

If, instead, the confessions determine which churches, doctrines,ministers, etc. are Reformed, then the churches cannot deviate from the confessions and still be Reformed.

But the Reformed churches in America have made significant revisions to the Westminster and still consider themselves Reformed, so likewise that idea is unacceptable.


One example is that in 1788 the Westminster Confession was revised to tone down all that church/state stuff. After that point, did all those churches then become "unreformed?"



SUMMARY: A summary of my own views is that there is no way that we can have a brand new confession or else we cease to be who we are. I am in favor of updating into modern language, and I am personally glad for the 1788 revision, but a revision of one area is different than a substantially "new" confession.




One last thought is this:

As the Gospel takes dominion over China, Russia, India and other nations, they might want to draft their own confessions and, due to different concerns, these confesssions might resemble the WCF or the 1689 in theology but look radically different in form and even address some different issues (such as respect to ancestors for the Chinese perhaps, or caste and class for Indians). This self-theologizing within bounds seems healthier than a mere adoption of the WCF.

In a large city, with a mixture of many who are of different "flavors" of the reformed faith I see nothing wrong with a church adopting a position that any one of the "reformed confessions" is acceptable.

However, a response to this might be that the Nicene Creed was Greek, but has become universal and unifying throughout the whole world.

My initial response is no. It's not necessary to have an additional confession drafted. Yes, the confessions were drafted in social, geographical, political, and religious climates but they were drafted with the idea to teach and instruct Christians in the Word of God. The confessions affirm what the Bible teaches therefore the confessions are applicable to today's social and theological climate. Maybe we could ask how different are the confessions and do they really cause any non unity between Christians. For the most part the confessions affirm the same statement of faith without much deviation from one another.

I would submit not a new confession but how about returning to the confessions in general. We can have Christian unity by affirming the confessions we already have in place. For instance would I make it a point of contention or difference if a church holds to the Three Forms of Unity and I hold to the Westminster Standards? No I wouldn't. I would be overjoyed that they affirm the Three Forms of Unity! The need is to reform back to the confessions and to find unity in the confessions that already exist.

The confessions are not infallible.

I see the confessions being statements of faith based on both Scripture as well as the heresies around us, while the catechisms are expressions of our belief. The catechisms really don't need updating- they are designed for teaching biblical principle, which doesn't change. But the confessions do reflect the errors of the day (as you pointed out) and today's errors aren't the same as the ones fro four centuries ago. So I would not be opposed to a modern synod authoring a confession for the modern world.

One thing that may be a problem, though. Other non-reformed groups have gathered together and made 'confessional statements', and they tend to create parachurch groups (Promise Keepers is a prime example). A whole lot of forethought would need to go into gathering a group of Church leaders that could do it with proper sobriety.

Theognome

"The Reformed confessions are much more numerous than those of the Roman, Greek, and Lutheran churches… The Reformed churches allowed great freedom in the development of several dogmas, but always remained within the framework of the Word of God, to which they strictly adhered.” Peter J. S. De Klerk as quoted by Joel R. Beeke in, "Living for God's Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism"

Certainly at the beginning of the Reformation there were many Confessions (see Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries) the question is how necessary is that today?

I know there have been reports clarifying positions in the paedobaptist churches regarding the errors from the New Perspective, Federal Vision, and Auburn Avenue Theology (OPC's Report on Justification presented to the 73rd Assembly and 34th PCA GA's Ad Interim Study); Perhaps they should adopt documents - as the Dutch Reformed Church did which had previously adopted the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession and then later adopted the Canons of Dort as a clarification of doctrines already stated.

I know there have been reports clarifying positions in the paedobaptist churches regarding the errors from the New Perspective, Federal Vision, and Auburn Avenue Theology (OPC's Report on Justification presented to the 73rd Assembly and 34th PCA GA's Ad Interim Study); Perhaps they should adopt documents - as the Dutch Reformed Church did which had previously adopted the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession and then later adopted the Canons of Dort as a clarification of doctrines already stated.

Interesting. We are in the process of adopting the 1689 London Baptist Confession as our doctrinal statement. I am teaching through the confession in Sunday school as part of the preparation process. The members of our church are hearing a systematic approach to the confession for the first time. Before this study began we had on average about ten people in Sunday school. Now we are pushing twenty or more. Why is that? For starters the confession provides answers to the theological questions that most Christians have. As Bill previously stated, the confessions are not infallible. But for the three hundred plus years that they have been in existence their veracity has been upheld. There is a hunger in many churches for the Word of God, and doctrine in particular. I am bullish on the state of the church.

Of course, the confessions don't address modern teachings specifically. It is in this area that confessional denominations and churches can augment what the confessions don't address in detail. For example, my church has discussed publishing position papers on modern teachings such as the New Perspective and the Emergent Church. These position papers would reflect the official position of the church on these two issues. Position papers would be written and agreed to on an as needed basis. The confession would stand on it's own merit with scripture as the standard by which it is measured.

I have the WCF in 2 languages here (looking at them) plus an additional dialect, plus I memorized the entire shorter catechism and base much of my teaching on the 1689.

Bill, you are right, I think in this day people are craving deeper answers to the pat and superficial answers that most religionists give and the 1689 gives those answers of substance.

I think in this day people are craving deeper answers to the pat and superficial answers that most religionists give and the 1689 gives those answers of substance.

Perg, that's why I am not dour on the state of the church; or rather, the desire of God's people to know more about the Word. I put responsibility for this in the hands of the shepherds. If there is going to be revival in the church, it will start with pastors and elders who are committed to teaching the Word of God. I have heard bible teachers present the Word as though it's meaning was just found out yesterday. I understand why they present the Word that way; shock value! We live in an age of sound-bytes. But why the inclination to distance ourselves from church history? Being a Baptist (and from a Baptist perspective), how has the confession been invalidated in the past three hundred nineteen years? If we can show our people that our faith is shared with the first few generations that followed the Reformation, how encouraging would that be for the church?

Dr. James Renihan wrote a short piece on full subscription. I quote it here:

Confessional subscription employs three main terms in its nomenclature: absolute, strict/full, and loose. ARBCA has adopted the middle position. According to Dr. Morton H. Smith, “strict or full subscription takes at face value” the terminology used in adopting a confession of faith.

In an article entitled “The Case for Full Subscription” (in The Practice of Confessional Subscription, ed. by David Hall, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995; pages 185-6), Dr. Smith provides some helpful insights [albeit in a Presbyterian context with a much more developed tradition of discussion of the issue than among Baptists]. He says, “Note some things that full subscription does not mean. First, it does not insist that all of the teachings of the Confession . . . are of equal importance (just as not all of the teachings in the Bible are of equal importance). The full subscriptionist recognizes that some doctrines are more foundational than others, in accord with the Biblical example. Positively, the full subscriptionist believes that in professing that the Confession . . . [is] his confession, he is subscribing to all of the doctrines in the Confession . . . they are all part of the system of doctrine . . . . Second, full subscription does not require the adoption of every word of the Confession . . . but positively believes that we are adopting every doctrine or teaching of the Confession . . . .”

One should note the language found in the agreement signed by the messengers of the founding churches in Mesa, Arizona in March, 1997; in the ARBCA constitution; and in the application for membership. The first states, “We declare that our primary rule of faith and practice is the inerrant Word of God, and adopt as our subordinate standards the excellent document commonly known as the London Baptist Confession of 1689, and the Constitution of this Association.” The second states, “While we hold tenaciously to the inerrant and infallible Word of God as found in the sixty-six books of the Bible (this being our final source of faith and practice), we embrace and adopt the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 as a faithful expression of the doctrine taught in the Scriptures. This Confession is the doctrinal standard of the Association,” and in the third the applying church signs this statement: “We accept the London Confession of Faith of 1689 as an accurate and reliable expression of what the Scriptures teach and the faith we confess.” In each case, the member churches commit themselves to the Confession as a whole. We maintain the primacy of the Scriptures, and “embrace and adopt” the Confession as a truthful expression of our convictions with regard to the details of Scripture.

Taken at face value, these words imply, even though they do not explicitly state, strict, or full subscription. This does not mean that we treat every doctrine in the Confession as if it were equally important, but we do commit ourselves to all of the doctrines of the Confession. In addition, as Dr. Smith says so well, “full subscription does not require the adoption of every word of the Confession or Catechisms, but positively believes that we are adopting every doctrine or teaching of the Confession or Catechisms.” This is an important distinction, and needs to be understood. It is possible for an individual, a church, or an association to be cautious about the wording used to express a specific doctrine without denying the doctrine that wording seeks to define. Full subscription honestly adopts all of the doctrines expressed in the confessional formulation. In the case of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America, this means that by subscribing to the document commonly known as the London Baptist Confession of 1689, we receive all of the doctrines contained in it as true, founded on the Word of God.

Pergy, I hope this helps.

Bill;

YOu said; "Being a Baptist (and from a Baptist perspective), how has the confession been invalidated in the past three hundred nineteen years?"



Didn't us Baptist try to invalidate the WCF by adopting the parts of it that we liked but throwing out what we didn't like? That's why we follow the 1689 rather than the WCF.

And even the Presbies did the same in 1788 and they are still called Reformed? They tried to minimize that embarrassing church-state thing.

I think the real need is to improved the education of our current children....

Remember, the Westminster Shorter Catechism was written for "children".

As to the Larger Catechism and the Confession itself, I feel any "shortcomings" of it can be traced to it's sometimes "academic style" of writing, which can and should be addressed by changing how we currently educate our youth, so they will be better able to handle anything written in an "academic style".

We could write an Evangelical Manifesto...wait, they already did that.
Here's an RP pastor's blog on that piece of writing. (My B-I-L, incidentally.)
Maybe you aren't saying we should do something like this, though--and I'm sure you aren't saying to do it the way these Evangelical Churches did, but maybe it'd end up being sort of the same idea?

I think the burden of going forward would need to be on the one suggesting replacement confessions. What, specifically, is thought to be biblically wrong or unclear? Also, what specifically could not be changed through the denominational amendment processes?

Scott, I deleted the opening post, so I can't reference it anymore, but I clearly stated that I thought the WCF did not contain anything biblically wrong or unclear: never implied, hinted, stated that at all. My question was about the current theological climate and restating our beliefs to confront these (it is no longer Socinians, RCCs, Arminians, etc. against whom we define ourselves, but FV, NPP, Emergents, Fundamentalists, etc).

As I also clearly stated, I love the WCF. I don't want to see anything in it changed.

Anyway, I have since deleted the OP anyway.

Nothing to see here.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Scott, I deleted the opening post, so I can't reference it anymore, but I clearly stated that I thought the WCF did not contain anything biblically wrong or unclear: never implied, hinted, stated that at all. My question was about the current theological climate and restating our beliefs to confront these (it is no longer Socinians, RCCs, Arminians, etc. against whom we define ourselves, but FV, NPP, Emergents, Fundamentalists, etc).

As I also clearly stated, I love the WCF. I don't want to see anything in it changed.

Anyway, I have since deleted the OP anyway.

Nothing to see here.

Prufrock, you do open up a valid point though...that is that the WC was written very close to the opening time of the "Reformation", and it was written in that light and time period with certain fears and aspirations...So the WF has its unique "context" in which it was written.
However, this opens up another can of worms, in that one can argue that the "Reformation" has not really ended at all, since the major points of contention that launched the Reformation, have not seen any changes in the Roman Catholic Church....Rome still calls what the Reformed rely on for their salvation to be a "legal fiction", that is the "Imputation of Christ's Righteousness" to the believer.

The RCC has seen changes as a result of the Reformation They behold our Doctrine and were shaped by it: they rejected it. They took on a new dogmatic shape just as we did. I think the reformation clearly really is over, which is why we are now called Reformed, not Reformers.

-----Added 12/19/2008 at 02:07:29 EST-----

I think the phrase Semper Reformanda is both over- and inappropriately used. Yes, if we find that in our church which must be reformed according to scripture, we must do it. But if we truly and whole-heartedly affirm our confession and our heritage (i.e., we think it is biblical), then what are we trying to reform?

Originally Posted by Prufrock

The RCC has seen changes as a result of the Reformation They behold our Doctrine and were shaped by it: they rejected it. They took on a new dogmatic shape just as we did. I think the reformation clearly really is over, which is why we are now called Reformed, not Reformers.

-----Added 12/19/2008 at 02:07:29 EST-----

I think the phrase Semper Reformanda is both over- and inappropriately used. Yes, if we find that in our church which must be reformed according to scripture, we must do it. But if we truly and whole-heartedly affirm our confession and our heritage (i.e., we think it is biblical), then what are we trying to reform?

You raise valid points....but even in light of your points, should we "Reformed" stop trying to be "Reformers" of the Roman Church?....I think not.....Our job that started with the beginning of the Reformation is not and should not be considered finished. In that sense, I feel that the "Reformation" is still with us and alive.

Originally Posted by Zeno333

but even in light of your points, should we "Reformed" stop trying to be "Reformers" of the Roman Church?....I think not.....Our job that started with the beginning of the Reformation is not and should not be considered finished.

In a way, yeah, I think our "job" is finished. I don't think we're trying to Reform the Roman assembly at all. We continue to preach the Word, to teach true doctrine, to confront the errors of our day which includes a repudiation of that which is taught by Rome -- all of these things are true. But I'm not sure that means we should be reforming the Roman church any more than United States founders firm belief and advocation of Republican government meant that after we were a country we were still trying to reform the British government.

We've left Rome. We've said that we will have nothing to do with them any more. I mean, they still have us under anathema, anyway: I don't think that we're fit subjects of reforming them.

Although, at this point we're probably going to just be quibbling about words, so...those are my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

The RCC has seen changes as a result of the Reformation They behold our Doctrine and were shaped by it: they rejected it. They took on a new dogmatic shape just as we did. I think the reformation clearly really is over, which is why we are now called Reformed, not Reformers.

-----Added 12/19/2008 at 02:07:29 EST-----

I think the phrase Semper Reformanda is both over- and inappropriately used. Yes, if we find that in our church which must be reformed according to scripture, we must do it. But if we truly and whole-heartedly affirm our confession and our heritage (i.e., we think it is biblical), then what are we trying to reform?

I have never thought about the integrity of the language before, so I don't have a set opinion. But I'm wondering if things like Modern Reformation can be rightfully named as such in view of reforming the culture or the mainstream "evangelical" churches, etc, but not necessarily our own churches that do uphold the confessions??

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by Zeno333

but even in light of your points, should we "Reformed" stop trying to be "Reformers" of the Roman Church?....I think not.....Our job that started with the beginning of the Reformation is not and should not be considered finished.

In a way, yeah, I think our "job" is finished. I don't think we're trying to Reform the Roman assembly at all. We continue to preach the Word, to teach true doctrine, to confront the errors of our day which includes a repudiation of that which is taught by Rome -- all of these things are true. But I'm not sure that means we should be reforming the Roman church any more than United States founders firm belief and advocation of Republican government meant that after we were a country we were still trying to reform the British government.

We've left Rome. We've said that we will have nothing to do with them any more. I mean, they still have us under anathema, anyway: I don't think that we're fit subjects of reforming them.

Although, at this point we're probably going to just be quibbling about words, so...those are my thoughts.

OK, how about this ....in my distant past I had some interactions with Scott Hahn, the "infamous" ex-Presbyterian now Roman Catholic, while he was still a Presbyterian....(He was one of the most "charismatic" personality wise people I have ever met by the way). I may someday write him a long letter, trying to spell out the error in his ways....(Like quoting the Westminster Catechism that states Sanctification is "inseparably joined" with Justification. That is one important idea of the Reformed tradition that Scott Hahn just could not get himself to grasp onto). It will be "kicking a dead horse" so to speak, but I will probably give it a try....Besides, using my printer helps keep the printhead from getting clogged with ink.

I have never thought about the integrity of the language before, so I don't have a set opinion. But I'm wondering if things like Modern Reformation can be rightfully named as such in view of reforming the culture or the mainstream "evangelical" churches, etc, but not necessarily our own churches that do uphold the confessions??

Maybe, I've never thought about it either.

In that sense I suppose "Reformation" would mean something different than it did to the reformers; it's a pretty multifaceted word.

-----Added 12/19/2008 at 03:10:18 EST-----

Originally Posted by Zeno333

OK, how about this ....in my distant past I had some interactions with Scott Hahn, the "infamous" ex-Presbyterian now Roman Catholic, while he was still a Presbyterian....(He was one of the most "charismatic" personality wise people I have ever met by the way). I may someday write him a long letter, trying to spell out the error in his ways....(Like quoting the Westminster Catechism that states Sanctification is "inseparably joined" with Justification. That is one important idea of the Reformed tradition that Scott Hahn just could not get himself to grasp onto). It will be "kicking a dead horse" so to speak, but I will probably give it a try....Besides, using my printer helps keep the printhead from getting clogged with ink.

Like I said, this will deteriorate into a quibble over words. I just wouldn't call that "Us being reformers of the Roman church." If you want to, go right ahead.

Originally Posted by he beholds

We could write an Evangelical Manifesto...wait, they already did that.
Here's an RP pastor's blog on that piece of writing. (My B-I-L, incidentally.)
Maybe you aren't saying we should do something like this, though--and I'm sure you aren't saying to do it the way these Evangelical Churches did, but maybe it'd end up being sort of the same idea?

Wow..i see that John Huffman of the church in Newport beach, CA was one of the signers of the Evangelical Manifesto...

I went to the First Presbyterian Church of downtown Pittsburgh as a kid and teenager, and Dr Lamont was the head preacher there when I started going, and John Huffman took over after Dr Lamont left....My mom and dad and myself always felt that Huffman's sermons never had the "meat" to them that Dr Lamont's had...I think the best sermon that Huffman ever preached from the pulpit of Pittsburgh's First Presbyterian, was the one sermon he preached that got him elected as First Church's replacement minister.
Dr. Lamont by the way along with Pittsburgh's Hillman foundation were part of he forces that helped launch R.C. Sproul's original Ligonier Valley Study Center.