Casey
Puritan Board Junior
Okay, I have a question that's somewhat provocative (though I hope charitable) but that I'm seriously concerned about having an answer regarding (somewhat related to this thread, but not exactly the same).
The Federal Vision folk have a habit of saying that their views are confessional. I think we'd agree that they aren't. Whatever the validity/soundness of their biblical arguments (again, we'd agree they aren't sound), it's obvious that they aren't confessional.
I hear Klineans say rather frequently that their views are just the (historic) confessional position. But, quite frankly, I think it's obvious that they aren't -- their view of the law/gospel distinction (as they formulate it), of the two-kingdoms, framework hypothesis, the sabbath, and of the mosaic covenant are clearly not articulated in the Westminster Standards. Perhaps Klineanism is biblical, but that is a different issue.
Well, now to the question: If confessionally Reformed denominations will not tolerate the Federal Vision claim of being confessional, why are Klineans allowed to make the same claim of confessional fidelity?
Now with all due respect to my brothers who hold to Klinean doctrines, it is not my desire to offend you. I understand that Klinean theology doesn't depart from the confession on justification. Please, please, please, I am not equating Klineanism with the content of FV, far from it, so please do not interpret this post as intending to make that connection. The connection I am making is the claim to being confessional. Additionally, I don't intend for this to be a thread for arguing whether or not Klinean theology is confessional -- the nature of the question presupposes that it isn't.
A follow up question would have to do with where this kind of confessional laxity could potentially lead. Why don't Klineans just propose changes to the Confession/Catechisms? Why do confessional churches allow contra-confessional views without changing their confessions? My concern is why a confessional denomination would allow an unconfessional system of doctrine -- one that adheres to the confessional view of justification, but contra-confessional views on other wide-ranging doctrines. These and related questions are what concern me.
I would especially like answers from churchmen, though anyone who can contribute feel free to do so. Thank you. God's blessing be with you all this Lord's Day.
The Federal Vision folk have a habit of saying that their views are confessional. I think we'd agree that they aren't. Whatever the validity/soundness of their biblical arguments (again, we'd agree they aren't sound), it's obvious that they aren't confessional.
I hear Klineans say rather frequently that their views are just the (historic) confessional position. But, quite frankly, I think it's obvious that they aren't -- their view of the law/gospel distinction (as they formulate it), of the two-kingdoms, framework hypothesis, the sabbath, and of the mosaic covenant are clearly not articulated in the Westminster Standards. Perhaps Klineanism is biblical, but that is a different issue.
Well, now to the question: If confessionally Reformed denominations will not tolerate the Federal Vision claim of being confessional, why are Klineans allowed to make the same claim of confessional fidelity?
Now with all due respect to my brothers who hold to Klinean doctrines, it is not my desire to offend you. I understand that Klinean theology doesn't depart from the confession on justification. Please, please, please, I am not equating Klineanism with the content of FV, far from it, so please do not interpret this post as intending to make that connection. The connection I am making is the claim to being confessional. Additionally, I don't intend for this to be a thread for arguing whether or not Klinean theology is confessional -- the nature of the question presupposes that it isn't.
A follow up question would have to do with where this kind of confessional laxity could potentially lead. Why don't Klineans just propose changes to the Confession/Catechisms? Why do confessional churches allow contra-confessional views without changing their confessions? My concern is why a confessional denomination would allow an unconfessional system of doctrine -- one that adheres to the confessional view of justification, but contra-confessional views on other wide-ranging doctrines. These and related questions are what concern me.
I would especially like answers from churchmen, though anyone who can contribute feel free to do so. Thank you. God's blessing be with you all this Lord's Day.