Is there a difference between holding to a confesssion and being confesssional?

[Pergamum]

?

Can one hold to a confession and yet not be confessional?

I suppose churches could, but can individuals?

Is Confesssionalism thus an attitude?

 

[Scott1]

A specific "confession," that is, doctrine of Scripture summarized by a specific written document is required for the term to have any meaning.

It's what one believes that in those summaries that makes one confessional.

There are many doctrines that are the same amongst the historic Confession (e.g. sabbath and LBCF and WCF).

 

[torstar]

Having spent years in variations of what "confessional" means, and without wanting to be anything but very respectful and humble in my comments...

For the purposes of calling a church and believer Reformed, I expect a church will:

- state adherence to a confession (or grouping of them),

- preach directly from this confession many times a year

- expect a strong knowledge of the contents, subject to due diligence by elders, in order to obtain membership

- teach covenant children the contents of the confession throughout their school years

- expect members to read the confession often in their devotions and quote freely from it, and

- expect members will meditate on the contents along with the Word during daily devotions

Confessional does not mean declaring a confessional adherence on your website and not requiring membership knowledge or use of the contents in a meaningful way.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

?

Can one hold to a confession and yet not be confessional?

I suppose churches could, but can individuals?

Is Confesssionalism thus an attitude?

In my mind, to be truly Confessional is to believe that the Church, together, confesses the faith. I see most people approach subscription to a Confession as a very private matter. In other words, they pick a bit of one Confession here, another here, a little from a favorite theologian there, and their own personal mash-up is a Confession. Each person then is an individuated unit with a personal Confession and they just happen to overlap enough so they're not constantly fighting with one another.

In my mind, being Confessional is a belief (from Ephesians 4) that Christ has promised to lead His Church in the unity of the faith. Sin makes that difficult but a Confession plasters on the front door of the Church: this we believe. That means we have to strive together to help each other work toward unity on such matters and encourage one another toward a common end rather than aimlessly moving toward individual ends that require individual effort.

 

[Pergamum]

Rich,

That is what I believe as well (I think).

The ecumenical creeds can be confessed by all and even the WCF and the 1689 line up pretty similarly.

It is just those small differences between the confessions that bother me and have nagged at me for so long, and which seems to show that Christ's Church is not agreed on its doctrine. But maybe I am looking at the 5% difference and not the 95% same-ness. Sometimes, I can understand the lure of Catholicism because they can point to the splinters of Protestantism while they stand back and say "The Church believes this..." while the Protestants have split and all follow their own petty "little c creeds" and privatize their religion.

I have always held the 1689, but up until this point denied that I was really "confessional" even while holding this particular confession. To me confessionalism looked too much like a simplistic silver bullet and I see many confessional churches also that have slid into liberalism among the Presbyterians. However, now I am growing tired of fractured evangelical belief and find myself trying to move towards more of a connectional, historic and catholic (little c) faith, and this seems to necessitate a move towards confesssionalism (as a state of mind or an attitude in addition to simple adherance to a confession) as a historic mooring.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Notthemama1984]

Confessional does not mean declaring a confessional adherence on your website and not requiring membership knowledge or use of the contents in a meaningful way.

I'll leave it at that.

Unfortunately I think too many "confessional" churches are this way.

 

[Scott1]

I can understand the lure of Catholicism because they can point to the splinters of Protestantism while they stand back and say "The Church believes this..." while the Protestants have split and all follow their own petty "little c creeds" and privatize their religion.

Not to distract from your overall point, but only to note that that system allows for special revelation to continue, and even contradict scripture- so doctrine changes all the time. It's not at all a case of the Word being forever settled in that system.

 

[py3ak]

Sometimes, I can understand the lure of Catholicism because they can point to the splinters of Protestantism while they stand back and say "The Church believes this..." while the Protestants have split and all follow their own petty "little c creeds" and privatize their religion.

But if you press down beyond the organizational unity, you'll find wild variations of belief and constant conflict among those who are under this umbrella. They have a figurehead, but these days not even a liturgical unity.

 

[Jack K]

In terms of actual usage, I mostly hear "confessional" used in two ways:

1. To denote any church that holds to a confession.

2. To denote those particular churches or individuals within a confession-claiming body who are "sticklers" for adherence to that confession.

I think being confessional in the first sense is good. I think being confessional in the second sense can be either good or bad, depending on how badly sticklers are needed in a given situation and how one goes about it.

 

[discipulo]

In terms of actual usage, I mostly hear "confessional" used in two ways:

1. To denote any church that holds to a confession.

2. To denote those particular churches or individuals within a confession-claiming body who are "sticklers" for adherence to that confession.

I think being confessional in the first sense is good. I think being confessional in the second sense can be either good or bad, depending on how badly sticklers are needed in a given situation and how one goes about it.

Tryed to see what stickler means but could find it, can you please explain?


Pergamum, I find your question very relevant and challenging, both concerning the individual and visible church and corporate congregation.

The question has actually been very much on my mind, specially so since in Holland unfortunately several churches pay a shallow lip service to the 3FU while from the pulpit and from synodical decisions they show those Confessions don’t have the biding value that should have.

This while on the individual church member level individualism, relativism and subjectivism mark most personal beliefs to become quite distorted and drifting away from the doctrinal content of the Confessions their Churches and Officers subscribe.

I also must say that in my opinion Scott, Kent and Rich gave great answers that, in their different approach complement each other.

I specially find Rich’s answer very important precisely because it focus towards catholicity and against the individualistic and clubistic trend in this post-post-modern (and everything else we know) society.

It was from Horton that I’ve heard from the first time the difference between Sola Scriptura and Scriptura Solo.

While the Reformers were proclaiming Sola Scriptura they were writing Confessions.
This was viewed by some with anabaptistic or pietistic approaches as a incoherence, but in fact it was quite the opposite, it was precisely to prevent the kind of individualistic subjective fragmented selective approach to Scripture that is so common today.

Tragically Evangelicalism in the last 150 years developed very much along these lines.

Being Confessional means the highest regard for Scripture and for Church, one and the other, as the Church must and should Confess the Whole Counsel of God, Truth, in a clear, sound, definite, compact, although dense and deep, statement.

With this I must say that in my opinion the 6 Forms of Unity are together exactly that statement.

I like how Fesko says it:

[video=youtube;D313CffJm_k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D313CffJm_k[/video]

 

[Jack K]

In terms of actual usage, I mostly hear "confessional" used in two ways:

1. To denote any church that holds to a confession.

2. To denote those particular churches or individuals within a confession-claiming body who are "sticklers" for adherence to that confession.

I think being confessional in the first sense is good. I think being confessional in the second sense can be either good or bad, depending on how badly sticklers are needed in a given situation and how one goes about it.

Tryed to see what stickler means but could find it, can you please explain?

Stickler: One who insists that things always be done a certain, correct way, without any exceptions or bending of the standards. It may be American slang.

 

[Scott1]

The video does well to point out, the "me" generation where things are solely viewed through the lens of self, without reference to one's place in the broader community, and even without any connection to those who have gone before us.

If we understand Scripture to not be relative, really, to our understanding, but settled truth, as in forever settled in heaven, it's not going to change.

Part of "confessing" is acknowledging that- and being humbled by it.

And submitting to it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I like how Fesko says it:

[video=youtube;D313CffJm_k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D313CffJm_k[/video]

Fesko is one sharp-dressed Professor. Oh, and what a great way of putting the issue.

 

[Pergamum]

In terms of actual usage, I mostly hear "confessional" used in two ways:

1. To denote any church that holds to a confession.

2. To denote those particular churches or individuals within a confession-claiming body who are "sticklers" for adherence to that confession.

I think being confessional in the first sense is good. I think being confessional in the second sense can be either good or bad, depending on how badly sticklers are needed in a given situation and how one goes about it.

Tryed to see what stickler means but could find it, can you please explain?


Pergamum, I find your question very relevant and challenging, both concerning the individual and visible church and corporate congregation.

The question has actually been very much on my mind, specially so since in Holland unfortunately several churches pay a shallow lip service to the 3FU while from the pulpit and from synodical decisions they show those Confessions don’t have the biding value that should have.

This while on the individual church member level individualism, relativism and subjectivism mark most personal beliefs to become quite distorted and drifting away from the doctrinal content of the Confessions their Churches and Officers subscribe.

I also must say that in my opinion Scott, Kent and Rich gave great answers that, in their different approach complement each other.

I specially find Rich’s answer very important precisely because it focus towards catholicity and against the individualistic and clubistic trend in this post-post-modern (and everything else we know) society.

It was from Horton that I’ve heard from the first time the difference between Sola Scriptura and Scriptura Solo.

While the Reformers were proclaiming Sola Scriptura they were writing Confessions.
This was viewed by some with anabaptistic or pietistic approaches as a incoherence, but in fact it was quite the opposite, it was precisely to prevent the kind of individualistic subjective fragmented selective approach to Scripture that is so common today.

Tragically Evangelicalism in the last 150 years developed very much along these lines.

Being Confessional means the highest regard for Scripture and for Church, one and the other, as the Church must and should Confess the Whole Counsel of God, Truth, in a clear, sound, definite, compact, although dense and deep, statement.

With this I must say that in my opinion the 6 Forms of Unity are together exactly that statement.

I like how Fesko says it:

[video=youtube;D313CffJm_k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D313CffJm_k[/video]

Thanks, great video.

---------- Post added at 01:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 AM ----------

Sometimes, I can understand the lure of Catholicism because they can point to the splinters of Protestantism while they stand back and say "The Church believes this..." while the Protestants have split and all follow their own petty "little c creeds" and privatize their religion.

But if you press down beyond the organizational unity, you'll find wild variations of belief and constant conflict among those who are under this umbrella. They have a figurehead, but these days not even a liturgical unity.

Don't worry, I am not sliding towards Catholicism. their supposed unity is one attractive point, however, even if that, too, is merely a facade (many of those doctrines that were "settled" by tradition seeemed much disputed before the Church officially mandated what to believe).


There is a big attraction to seeing Christianity as one historic, and unified whole.