Is the reformed paradigm of confessionalism antithetical to unity?

[raderag]

This is just something I have been thinking about. It seems that there are two basic schools of thought in the reformed camp on our confessions. Either, we confess them to be abolutely true, and explicitly object to a few points, or we just accept the whole thing as a general guide, but yet have varying opinions on what it actually should mean.

One side leaves us with divisions, and the other side has no teeth.

Is it possible that Westminster is too comprehensive? Why did Westminster deal with issues that were not at issue, and that are not a matter of orthodoxy? Is there a real reason to restate the Trinity? Why not just exposit the creeds? Isn´t the modern evangelical notion of a Statement of Faith for every Church just an outgrowth of varying reformed confessional standards?

I find the Lutheran Church in this case to be more in tune with the way the Church has always done things. Rather than restate old dogmas or create new unceccesary ones, the Lutheran confessions include the creeds as their confession, explain the creeds in more detail, and deal with issues as they become important. In other words,, the Lutheran Creeds are a polemic against heresies and grave errors. Wouldn´t it be easier to be strict subscriptionist when there weren´t things in the confession such as exclusive Psalmody? Did the divines really see this issue as one that divides the orthodox Church from the false?

I am seriously looking for answers, and don´t mean this to be overly critical. I hold Westminster with the highest regard, but I wonder if it is the best approach. I also don´t mean to say that Lutheran confessions always picked the best issues. I am just wondering if there is any thought in how we approach forming confessions?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by raderag]

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by raderag]

 

[Scott]

Brett:

[1] Have you seen the Anglican Chicago-Lambeth Quadilateral regarding reunion? In spite of its somewhat imposing name, it is short and to the point:
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/Chicago_Lambeth.html

This is pretty good with the challenge being point 4 on the episcopate. I don't think it has had any significant influence, though.

[2] In terms of the WCF, remember that subscription only applies to church officers. Members of the church need affirm very little, as you can see in the PCA BCO's church vows. Interestingly, as brief as the BCO is, one of the few points it does require is something in addition to historic orthodoxy (as expressed in the early creeds), namely sola fide. So, PCA churches are different than your traditional Luthern friends on the other board in terms of breadth of communion.

[3] If you think that the WCF is detailed, you should see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, all of which faithful Catholics have an obligations to accept.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

[4] Lutheran creeds strike me as detailed. The Book of Concord is very detailed - one volume is 481 pages. See, for example:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/TrigBOC.pdf

Further, conservative Lutherans, as you can see from your list, are not all that ecumenical. They have the right interpretation on details and everyone else is wrong. Consubstantiation is one example of that. Nobody but Lutherans believe that and they will not budge on this odd doctrine.

[5] In terms of the WCF restating the confession using different language, this is really a matter of style over substance. The substance is the same.

Scott

[Edited on 12-10-2004 by Scott]

 

[bigheavyq]

the wcf won't be antithetical to unity once all believers agree with it.
:bigsmile:

 

[JohnV]

Brett:

If I may, I'd like to respond with my view on this.

I'm thinking that you've got a wrong idea about the Confessions. They represent the limits of theology for the church, and also the limits of her authority in Christ. She may not go beyond what is written in the Word, and the Confessions state that limit. There may be some amendments, and there may be some exceptions, but yet as a whole they cover what the Church has garnered from centuries of ecclesiatstical controversy to state cleary what is expected of a true faith, of what the Word teaches. It does not ask for everyone to come up to snuff, but it does expect those given the offices to keep it whole.

When I speak of the limits of theology, I don't mean to infer that theology is limited in scope. Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that theology is limited to what God has clearly stated for us in His Word, and what is of absolute necessity from that Word. We may not add to it according to our own theories. So the Confession is wide enough to encircle all the controversies that may come up, but it is narrow in the sense that it only sets forth what the Word teaches, and no more. And it upholds the sufficency of Scripture.

As far as divisions is concerned, the Confessions do not promote or foster disunity. It allows the widest possible diversity, and yet the possibility of unity under the banner of faith. What has rather caused disunity is the failure to keep to the limits of the theological standards. For example, some have eaten away at the perspicuity of Scripture by calling into question the first three to eleven chapters of Genesis. Or other secondary issues have been promulgated as necessary Biblical teachings, without the warrant that was needed to do that. These are only people who have convinced themselves of their understandings and think themselves above those who do not fall into line with these notions. But these things do not come out of the Confessions, but rather in spite of them.

For it is plain enough in the Confessions that the teachings of men should not be placed alongside of or over top of the Word of God, to be trusted for truth to the same degree. Such men have not only gone against the Confession, but they call into question the very integrity of the Church by raising their own reasonings above that of the decisions of the historical Church. One denomination may decide this or that, but the witness of the Church throughout history is well documented. This is the very tool that Calvin used in developing his Institutes, and upon which the great councils of the Church made their decisions. In all this it can be clearly seen that the Spirit led the Church and kept the doctrine pure, in spite of individual changes made by individual churches or denominations.

You speak of subscriptionism. It is all well and good, but it is already intrinsic in any Confession, even the Cofession of No Confession but Christ. But it all avails nothing if the elders of the church are not committed to the head of the Church, to Christ Himself. Even subscriptionist churches do the very same things as non-subscriptionist churches. I've seen it with my own eyes. But it is not the freedom within the Confessions that foster that; it is rather the liberty that people take for themselves to go against the Confessions, even while they speak of fidelity to them. They stretch their latitude to the extent that they eventually make the Confessions of no use to themselves, because they no longer recognize the limits of theology, but add to it as they see fit.

There are issues that there are differences on. These are minor in nature, and do not upset the unity of the Church. Yet there are those who would set these as marks of orthodoxy, and so upset both the major tenets of the Confession as well as the Church herself. But they do so on their own authority, not the Church's, not the Confession's, and not the Bible's.