Obstacles to Updating the Confession: Subtle Traditionalism

[JML]

Great article by Dr. Bob Gonzales on updating confessions:


Obstacles to Updating and Refining the 1689 Confession: Subtle Traditionalism | It Is Written


This is a part of a series on updating the 1689 Baptist confession and the obstacles that such an endeavor faces. The rest of the obstacles can also be found on his website:

drbobgonzales.com

So far the objections covered have been:

1) Strict Subscription
2) Subtle Traditionalism

He has also covered his reasons for why the 1689 should be updated which can be found on the website as well.


Do the confessions need updating? If so, what would be some obstacles to this? What are your thoughts?

 

[steadfast7]

Updating the confession seems part and parcel of the principle of reformata semper reformanda. We are living in another age and the church has different opponents we must distinguish ourselves from. I believe the Reformers would have expected the church 500 years after their time to have updated their confession.

 

[elnwood]

Confessions can be updated, like the American revision of the WCF. However, what was more common in the Protestant Church was the writing of new confessions. There's a reason why the continental reformers had not one, not two, but THREE forms of unity. Just as the Reformers did, we ought to write new confessions to address the issues of our time.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Hasn't the Baptist conferssion already been updated several times i.e. New Hampshire, BFM 1925, BFM 1963, And BFM 2000?

 

[JP Wallace]

Bill the BFM are very different in many, many ways from the 1689 confession, for a start they are not explicitly covenantal, nor do they reflect the 1689 understanding of the sacraments etc. etc. In other words they are not, and are very far from being, updates, but rather omit, modify and replace much (and much that is of great importance) that is contained in the 1689.

Hampshire is very brief like a summary statement of faith, certainly not in the same 'league' as the 1689.

In comparison to all of these the 1689 is much more robustly connected to the Reformed tradition ,and more full in its statements of faith.

 

[VictorBravo]

I think the primary obstacle facing those who would "update" the confession is understanding and clearly identifying exactly what is out of date. I don't think modern attempts reach that. At least, not in substance.

There are relatively few in the Baptist arena that understand the point behind a confession: it is to remind us that our predecessors in faith spent a great deal of time thinking about sound doctrine and endeavored to set out guideposts for those on the way. The act of subscription is a public act of commitment to those doctrines. Nothing more than that. It does not anathematize those who don't subscribe. It has no authority over those who do not subscribe to it, and therefore is no threat to others.

As a beloved former pastor of mine once said, "Ours is not a confessional age." And I think he is right. We tend to have a superficial understanding of the issues and doctrine. We look our history up on Wiki. We are quick to find the need for something new. The Confessions (all of the Reformed-era confessions) operate as a check on those impulses. I doubt there are many men of our era with the time to get together who have the ability and experience to actually improve on any of the Confessions. The men I can think of would, probably to a man, say, "stick with what we've got."

If a man or a church seeks to revise a confession to match their understanding of doctrine, nothing is stopping them. But let them be clear the reason for it is because they don't agree with the older ones. I do think it is better to not subscribe to something than to subscribe to something and try to change it.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Those who argue for changing confessional standards generally argue from the standpoint of changing times. "The times, they are a changing." "We live in a different world/era." These are common assertions. Well, friends, the wisest man who ever lived, who obtained said wisdom from the Holy Spirit Himself, disagrees with these assumptions.

"That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun." ~Ecclesiastes 1:9 (emphasis mine)

Being confessional means that we subscribe to the same set of truth statements. Truth, my friends, does not change because the Author of Truth is immutable.

What we need to do is figure out how the Biblical Truth espoused in the confessions is to be applied to the current era in which we live. What we do not need to do is figure out the "new truth" that's for the world we live in today. There is no "new truth".

That's my

 

[KMK]

His article seems to be based on this:

Throughout the last several decades many evangelical churches in America have been engaged in a process of reformation that is in some ways analogous to the great Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.

But he provides no data to back this up. I remember reading somewhere recently a different writer make the exact opposite claim. There certainly don't appear to be 'many' churches engaged in reformation in my neck of the woods.

 

[elnwood]

Bill the BFM are very different in many, many ways from the 1689 confession, for a start they are not explicitly covenantal, nor do they reflect the 1689 understanding of the sacraments etc. etc. In other words they are not, and are very far from being, updates, but rather omit, modify and replace much (and much that is of great importance) that is contained in the 1689.

On the flip side, the BFM includes many things pertaining to our times that the LBC does not. There are clear statements on inerrancy, the roles of government, male and female roles in the church and in marriage, and evangelism and missions. I appreciate the BFM2000, and I know Reformed SBC churches that confess both the LBC1689 and the BFM2000. If the Continental Reformed can use Three Forms of Unity, why can't we use two?

It's not that truth has changed since the 17th century. It's that the things that concern the church today are different than what concerned the church back in the 17th century. The Reformed Confessions were addressing the errors of their time (specifically Roman Catholicism and Anabaptists), and the LBC was written to show essential agreement with them to prevent persecution.

The church is facing different issues four hundred years later in different continents all over the world. We should make confessions that reflect this.

 

[timmopussycat]

His article seems to be based on this:

Throughout the last several decades many evangelical churches in America have been engaged in a process of reformation that is in some ways analogous to the great Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.

But he provides no data to back this up. I remember reading somewhere recently a different writer make the exact opposite claim. There certainly don't appear to be 'many' churches engaged in reformation in my neck of the woods.

The writer's intended audience (American Reformed Baptist and to an extent the young restless and Reformed crowd), is living the data. Think where such churches were 50 years ago and compare with today.

 

[JP Wallace]

Don,

Not arguing with any of that, but I really do think that BFM is just about acceptable to a Reformed Church. I myself could not adopt it all because I think it is wrong in places and is lacking in many places. Furthermore, while not judging anyone, I can't see how a church can actually adopt both without qualifying both as I have stated taking e.g.in their teaching on the sacraments alone they take differing positions e.g. BCF is Calvinian, BFM is Zwinglian in relation to the Lord's Supper.

The BFM is perhaps a side-branch of the confessional tree but not a development of the 1689.

Anyway, I was specifically answering Bill's point; the BFM's are NOT updates of the 1689, doubt they were ever intended to be, they are modern baptist documents, even in comparing the two there is probably much less left in than was taken away. In keeping with your points I would actually say that any updated confession must ADD to the 1689, perhaps along the lines that you suggest.

Also just to be pedantic I believe the 1689 does teach inerrancy just not in modern terms.

 

[KMK]

His article seems to be based on this:

Throughout the last several decades many evangelical churches in America have been engaged in a process of reformation that is in some ways analogous to the great Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.

But he provides no data to back this up. I remember reading somewhere recently a different writer make the exact opposite claim. There certainly don't appear to be 'many' churches engaged in reformation in my neck of the woods.

The writer's intended audience (American Reformed Baptist and to an extent the young restless and Reformed crowd), is living the data. Think where such churches were 50 years ago and compare with today.

The urgency of his article seems to be based on the idea that there is a mini-reformation occurring in 'many' churches. If there are 'many' churches involved in such reformation, I am glad to hear it. Is this common knowledge? Are there statistics to back this up? In my experience, most churches over the last decade are not reforming. (Unless by 'reforming' you mean becoming Purpose-Driven)

It seems to me we have more urgent matters than updating the confession because 99.9% of church goers don't even know about the confession.

 

[timmopussycat]

I think the primary obstacle facing those who would "update" the confession is understanding and clearly identifying exactly what is out of date. I don't think modern attempts reach that. At least, not in substance.

It might also be that some find points not addressed or insufficiently addressed by the confessions. For instance, WCF XXI V uses the word "psalms". Some might believe that it would be helpful to inConfessionate limiting the meaning of this word to the 150 psalms in the bible, since with the term undefined, the confession does not enforce that limitation.

There are relatively few in the Baptist arena that understand the point behind a confession: it is to remind us that our predecessors in faith spent a great deal of time thinking about sound doctrine and endeavored to set out guideposts for those on the way. The act of subscription is a public act of commitment to those doctrines. Nothing more than that. It does not anathematize those who don't subscribe. It has no authority over those who do not subscribe to it, and therefore is no threat to others.

Unfortunately the first statement does not apply to Dr. Gonzales who understands it well. And the problem with the second statement is that is misses the key point Dr. Gonzales is trying to make. Whatever subscribing to a confession is or was originally intended to be, inevitable human dynamics surrounding a tradition will tend to make that tradition into something else.

As a beloved former pastor of mine once said, "Ours is not a confessional age." And I think he is right. We tend to have a superficial understanding of the issues and doctrine. We look our history up on Wiki. We are quick to find the need for something new. The Confessions (all of the Reformed-era confessions) operate as a check on those impulses. I doubt there are many men of our era with the time to get together who have the ability and experience to actually improve on any of the Confessions. The men I can think of would, probably to a man, say, "stick with what we've got."

It should be noted that the WCF also carefully provides conditions under which it may rightly be amended. If 1 VI and X are considered together, one consequence is that IF it can be shown that confessions err either by Scripture or by good or necessary consequence deductions drawn from thence, then revisions to confessions become mandatory, since Scripture is the supreme judge of all controversies of religion, all decrees of councils and all opinions of men. To give one example where the WCF's supporting scriptures could be amended under this heading, consider the problems inherent in trying to use Heb 1:1 and 2 to support the claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased." It is hard to claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased" is a good and necessary consequence of God having spoken to us by His Son, when we know that prophecy continued in the church after the advent of Christ for at least a couple of decades.

 

[py3ak]

This:

To give one example where the WCF's supporting scriptures could be amended under this heading, consider the problems inherent in trying to use Heb 1:1 and 2 to support the claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased." It is hard to claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased" is a good and necessary consequence of God having spoken to us by His Son, when we know that prophecy continued in the church after the advent of Christ for at least a couple of decades.

Seems like a good example of this:

As a beloved former pastor of mine once said, "Ours is not a confessional age." And I think he is right. We tend to have a superficial understanding of the issues and doctrine.

John Owen:

In opposition to this gradual revelation of the mind of God under the old testament, the apostle intimates that now by Jesus, the Messiah, the Lord hath at once begun and finished the whole revelation of his will, according to their own hopes and expectation. So, Jude 1:3, the faith was “once delivered unto the saints;” not in one day, not in one sermon, or by one person, but at one season, or under one dispensation, comprising all the time from the entrance of the Lord Christ upon his ministry to the closing of the canon of Scripture; which period was now at hand. This season being once past and finished, no new revelation is to be expected, to the end of the world. Nothing shall be added unto nor altered in the worship of God any more.
(...)
We may see hence the absolute perfection of the revelation of the will of God by Christ and his apostles, as to every end and purpose whatever for which God ever did or ever will in this world reveal himself, or his mind and will. For as this was the last way and means that God ever designed for the discovery of himself, as to the worship and obedience which he requires, so the person by whom he accomplished this work makes it indispensably necessary that it be also absolutely perfect, from which nothing can be taken, to which nothing must be added, under the penalty of the extermination threatened to him that will not attend to the voice of that Prophet.

Overlooking obvious points was not the characteristic failing of the Protestants of the 17th century.

 

[jwithnell]

Truth, my friends, does not change because the Author of Truth is immutable.

Agreed. However, theology, like other sciences has room for additional understanding. Do you think Charles Hodge, G. Vos, and C. Van Til have not added to our body of knowledge? This is the basis for updating a confession, not social ones.

 

[VictorBravo]

I see the Confessions as a fundamental summary, not an exhaustive systematic theology. In that sense they are most useful to help us find bearings in the middle of deep, and sometimes convoluted, theological discussions.

For example, if a learned man expounds on an attribute of God and, after much argument and internal debate, concludes something that seems contrary to the Confessions, then, at the very least, we, who are not so learned, can sit up and note a potential red-flag.

It is not a matter of putting the Confessions before Scripture as using the Confession as a guide to Scripture.

If we come across something being taught that seems unconfessional, we can ask the proponent to clarify or explain. His options are: (1) it is confessional, but he is being misunderstood; (2) it is not confessional, and he plainly disagrees with the confession on this point, or (3) change the confession.

It's #3 that makes me most nervous.

 

[Zach]

Those who argue for changing confessional standards generally argue from the standpoint of changing times. "The times, they are a changing." "We live in a different world/era." These are common assertions. Well, friends, the wisest man who ever lived, who obtained said wisdom from the Holy Spirit Himself, disagrees with these assumptions.

"That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun." ~Ecclesiastes 1:9 (emphasis mine)

Being confessional means that we subscribe to the same set of truth statements. Truth, my friends, does not change because the Author of Truth is immutable.

What we need to do is figure out how the Biblical Truth espoused in the confessions is to be applied to the current era in which we live. What we do not need to do is figure out the "new truth" that's for the world we live in today. There is no "new truth".

That's my

Though the Confessions are not infallible or, as Victor said, a complete systematic theology they provide an excellent framework to work within and do not need to change with the times. I think Spurgeon said, "We do not need to conform the Bible to our age, we need to conform our age to the Bible." I think something similar can be said of the Confessions. However, like someone in this thread pointed out Confessions aren't important for those that don't subscribe to them anyway.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Do you think Charles Hodge, G. Vos, and C. Van Til have not added to our body of knowledge?

They most certainly did add to our understanding. But to my admittedly limited knowledge, none of them attempted to alter the confessions that they subscribed to.

 

[CharlieJ]

I see lack of unity as the greatest obstacle to updating a confession or writing a new confession. Who speaks for the entire Reformed world, or even the English-speaking Reformed world? Why would anyone take notice if one little group decided to do something like this?

Now, if the NAPARC denominations agreed that on the basis of this new confession, they would merge into a single denomination, and if delegates from Reformed churches around the world would send delegates to advise and approve the new confession, I would be interested.

 

[Scott1]

There needs to be a careful distinction of what is to be "updated," as several have posted above.

Is it the wording to the same theology or is it the theology that needs to be "updated" in this man's opinion?

The implication is that both need to be updated.

And what superior theology has the author discovered that it ought be updated to? What precisely? Another post appears to say remove sabbath keeping as it pertains to games, amusement and entertainment.

If one simply doesn't want to subscribe to the Confession (London Baptist in this case), it's not a case of "strict subscription" being a barrier, it's merely a lack of agreement with the theology that unites those who do believe it faithfully summarizes the doctrine of Scripture.

 

[Rich Koster]

How about leaving the confession alone and attaching a position paper that addresses some hot topics that face us today? A council would more likely come up with an added page or pages concerning some modern issues, that they can agree upon, rather than a reworking of the 1689.

 

[Rom]

I agree with several other posters here. There isn't even a demand for Confessional Christianity anymore. Most Evangelicals seem content with a loosey goosey 5-10 point "Statement of Faith", of which most points come straight out of the "Fundamentals".

Most of the YRR crowd largely follows personalities, as in "What has John Piper said?", "What did Driscoll say?", "What did Dever say?", "Have you read Keller's latest book?", etc.

The idea of a Confessional statement has been lost on this generation. It is lamentable but true. Teach Christians why Confessions are important and then we can maybe even *think* about updating them. Maybe they need to be in more "Modern" English. The OPCs MESV version of the WCF is handy for study after all.

I've been introducing the concepts of Confessions to those whom I work with who are in non Confessional Churches and I think they appreciate it. We just need to do a better job in educating evangelicals who think, "LEGALIST!" when you pull out a Confession.

 

[Rich Koster]

I agree with several other posters here. There isn't even a demand for Confessional Christianity anymore. Most Evangelicals seem content with a loosey goosey 5-10 point "Statement of Faith", of which most points come straight out of the "Fundamentals".

Most of the YRR crowd largely follows personalities, as in "What has John Piper said?", "What did Driscoll say?", "What did Dever say?", "Have you read Keller's latest book?", etc.

The idea of a Confessional statement has been lost on this generation. It is lamentable but true. Teach Christians why Confessions are important and then we can maybe even *think* about updating them. Maybe they need to be in more "Modern" English. The OPCs MESV version of the WCF is handy for study after all.

I've been introducing the concepts of Confessions to those whom I work with who are in non Confessional Churches and I think they appreciate it. We just need to do a better job in educating evangelicals who think, "LEGALIST!" when you pull out a Confession.

About 10 years ago, I was handed a LBC1689. I loved it. I had studied a little bit of G.I. Williamson's exposition on the WCF. To me it was the Baptist version of the WCF . I consider it a summary of the main points of doctrine. If someone wants to know what I believe, (I'm talking fine points after general discussion, here) I will most likely hand them a 1689 confession with this statement: "If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. If I can't answer you, I'll put you in contact with someone who could do a better job." I'm sure my elders would be glad to help out someone who is DoG curious.

 

[Scott1]

comment below

It should be noted that the WCF also carefully provides conditions under which it may rightly be amended.
Yes, Confessions can be amended, after careful exegesis, deliberation and reflection. They have stood the test of time, and much divine scrutiny and are not to be amended for light and transient reason.

If 1 VI and X are considered together, one consequence is that IF it can be shown that confessions err either by Scripture or by good or necessary consequence deductions drawn from thence, then revisions to confessions become mandatory,
Not quite. Biblical, reformed denominations hold that the Confessions are suboordinate to the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. Yet, they hold the confessions as what the church "confesses" to a skeptical world, and the basis of unity, that is their doctrinal agreement. It's not really case of individuals judging the Confessions so much as the Confession providing a basis for unity and accountability through their authority.

since Scripture is the supreme judge of all controversies of religion, all decrees of councils and all opinions of men. Yes, and scriptural interpretation according to who? Anyone's whim? To give one example where the WCF's supporting scriptures could be amended under this heading, consider the problems inherent in trying to use Heb 1:1 and 2 to support the claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased." It is hard to claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased" is a good and necessary consequence of God having spoken to us by His Son, when we know that prophecy continued in the church after the advent of Christ for at least a couple of decades.
We could discuss this point, which doctrine is faithfully summarized by the Confession.
Jesus is the Word.
The apostles were eyewitness of our Lord.
They were given a unique role in laying the foundation of our faith, built upon theirs and the prophets of the Old Testament.
The faith was once delivered to church, complete until the end of the world.
This was not complete in the old testament.
This is a standard point of theology charismatic/pentecostal analysis misinterprets or avoids.

 

[jwithnell]

First, though I'm not in a position where I must subscribe, I do indeed do so (in my case the WCF).

Secondly, with Federal Vision and other errors looming over us, I'd be terribly concerned about any effort to make changes or create a new WCF. I can see where attempts in the past to consider the confessions has been damaging -- 1905 WCF revisions/additions and the late 1960s decision to let churches choose whatever confession they want.

Thirdly, I don't see how we can draw a line in the sand and say: all theological discovery stops here; that after 16 whatever, anything written is the mere opinion of man. (As if the original framers were not men.) If an effort were made in the future, I hope it could draw on the rich scholarship of the last four hundred years and perhaps bring clarity to some points based on the work of these later men.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

A friend of mine once said over 25 years ago that he didn't even know that there was such a thing as Church History. He was raised in a theological construct known as 'The Restoration Movement'. It was started during the 2nd Great awakening. This movement was seeking to return to the teachings of the Apostolic period of the Church supposedly.

He had never heard of a confession of faith or the counsels that sought to discern between heresy and orthodoxy. He had a rude awakening and ended up becoming a Reformed Confessional Chrisitan after learning about the scriptures and how the Church used confessions to define solid biblical theology.

Most of the people I am introduced to have no idea what the reformation was or what any of the Confessions say. In a prior post Rom stated, "There isn't even a demand for Confessional Christianity anymore." I don't think there is a demand because no one is taught that the Faith is something that is to be confessed. We have had too much easy believism in our day and age. All we have to do is simply believe in Jesus. The motto is now "No Creed But Christ." At least that is what some people have been trying to propagate. And it has been done for so long that they don't even know what that means.

Revivalism, Pietism, Decisionalism, and other methodologies have taken the place of Christ and replaced his person and work. Those terms have been misused, abused, and have replaced the truth of God's work in revival, piety, and striving against sin. The confessions address the right issues. I mostly disagree with Don's assessment when he states,

"It's not that truth has changed since the 17th century. It's that the things that concern the church today are different than what concerned the church back in the 17th century. The Reformed Confessions were addressing the errors of their time (specifically Roman Catholicism and Anabaptists), and the LBC was written to show essential agreement with them to prevent persecution.

The church is facing different issues four hundred years later in different continents all over the world. We should make confessions that reflect this."

The issues are the same. The concerns and errors are also. They haven't changed. We are a creation that stands before God. We are sinful and in need of a Saviour. We need deliverance from the snare of sin. Those things are pretty precisely defined and contended with doctrinally and application wise by our confessions and standards. The problem I see is that most of us don't even know what the Confessions and Standards say. And sadly most of us don't even know what they contain. I have to admit that I was ignorant for way too long. And I am ashamed of it. There is a wealth of doctrine and application in them. I challenge anyone to read the Westminster Larger Catechism and Confession of Faith and tell me different.

I wish I had been discipled with such a great tool.

I found something quite refreshing that Rev. Winzer stated a while back. I will leave it with you all to ponder.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/time-new-reformed-confession-537/
Someone in advocating a new Confessional Standard wanted to cut out some the sticky points of contention that seem to plague the Reformed Church. His position was that minimalizing the standards a bit would bring more Unity.

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?

Reverend Matthew Winzer responded splendidly in my opinion. His last statement is spot on as usual.

In what universe could it have that effect? While there are men who conscientiously act with the vows of God upon them there is obviously going to be a group of people who maintain, assert, and defend every article of the confession which they have subscribed with their own hand in the sight of God and men. And why shouldn't they? Afterall, they not only promised to the church that they would do so, but the church also promised her support and nurture in the process.


The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust.

 

[elnwood]

Don,

Not arguing with any of that, but I really do think that BFM is just about acceptable to a Reformed Church. I myself could not adopt it all because I think it is wrong in places and is lacking in many places. Furthermore, while not judging anyone, I can't see how a church can actually adopt both without qualifying both as I have stated taking e.g.in their teaching on the sacraments alone they take differing positions e.g. BCF is Calvinian, BFM is Zwinglian in relation to the Lord's Supper.

The BFM is perhaps a side-branch of the confessional tree but not a development of the 1689.

Anyway, I was specifically answering Bill's point; the BFM's are NOT updates of the 1689, doubt they were ever intended to be, they are modern baptist documents, even in comparing the two there is probably much less left in than was taken away. In keeping with your points I would actually say that any updated confession must ADD to the 1689, perhaps along the lines that you suggest.

Also just to be pedantic I believe the 1689 does teach inerrancy just not in modern terms.

I've always read the BFM2000 to be broad enough to include both a Reformed and Memorial view of the Lord's Supper. After all the Reformed view does believe it is a memorial: "only a memorial" is actually in the BCF. But the Reformed view would say "only a memorial, AND ..." What specifically in the BFM can you not subscribe to? Or is it just the fact that you feel that it is lacking regarding the Lord's Supper that you feel you cannot affirm it?

For my part, I think it is better to add more Confessions than to modify it. I think it stands as a testimony to what our RB forebearers confessed 400 years ago. We should not add to it. It's called the 1689 for a reason -- what would be call it if we did a major revision/addition like the American WCF? No, better to come up with, say, the Magherafelt Baptist Confession of 2011 than to make revisions and pass it off as the London Baptist. Like the American WCF, you can ditch the part about the Anti-Christ that very few Reformed Baptists hold to anyway.

Regarding inerrancy in the confessions -- I believe the confessions teach inerrancy too, but the language is not modern enough to exclude the "limited inerrancy" found today. I've met a number of people who have denied inerrancy and subscribe to the Confessions in good conscience. It's a hole that needs to be plugged.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

For my part, I think it is better to add more Confessions than to modify it.

That's the practice of the PCUSA. If you add enough Confessions then you don't really confess anything specifically. For instance:

I've always read the BFM2000 to be broad enough to include both a Reformed and Memorial view of the Lord's Supper

Consequently, as a Church, one person takes the Lord's Supper as memorial while another takes it as Sacramental. In another case, one appeals to the 1689 while the other prefers the BFM2000 which is broad enough to include an Arminian soteriology.

This is precisely why ministers started adding more and more Confessions in the PCUSA because they had sufficient points of contact in the corpus of all their Confessions to be able to cover all their bases.

As one who has to examine candidates for licensure, it's often hard enough for men to master one set of standards rather than many and your comment demonstrates either naiveté, ignorance about the purpose of Confessions, or both.

 

[steadfast7]

I would argue that the confessions are not a summary of just any kind of doctrine, but those things for which the church fought tooth and nail against their opponents. The ancient creeds function in much the same way. They summarize theological wars that have been fought and won - essentially, they are battle cries. Are we still in a war with Rome? Absolutely. So, the original confession still stands. But we also have other new opponents, with deadly teaching, who have risen up: prosperity theology, open theism, radical fundamentalism, etc.

 

[Rom]

I would argue that the confessions are not a summary of just any kind of doctrine, but those things for which the church fought tooth and nail against their opponents. The ancient creeds function in much the same way. They summarize theological wars that have been fought and won - essentially, they are battle cries. Are we still in a war with Rome? Absolutely. So, the original confession still stands. But we also have other new opponents, with deadly teaching, who have risen up: prosperity theology, open theism, radical fundamentalism, etc.

The Confessions already are incompatible with those teachings. For instance, no one can read the WCF and think that Open Theism is even possible within the framework of the Confession. Same for Fundamentalism and Prosperity Theology.

Sure it doesn't come out and say the phrase, "Open Theism is heresy", but read WCF 3 (God's Eternal Decree) and you should come to that reading quite naturally