The Confessions are out-dated?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Not surprising. The Confessions do not represent a redemptive historical hermeneutic, and are clearly 6/24 in explicit statement and in hermeneutical principal. Issues like this are exactly why we don't need a new confession.
Cheers,
Adam
Cheers,
Adam
That's strange. I did a search for the "exact wording" of Scott's post and only this Puritanboard thread came up.
I can disagree with a man and not condemn the statement. In fact, what Scott wrote in his article I agree with. I just don't know how we would end up with a new Confession today given the current circumstances. I'd be interested in a suggestion in how that would be practically possible.
I can disagree with a man and not condemn the statement. In fact, what Scott wrote in his article I agree with. I just don't know how we would end up with a new Confession today given the current circumstances. I'd be interested in a suggestion in how that would be practically possible.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
I'm not shocked! Dr Clark has been known to make interesting statements. But then again one would need to read a lot more than just this one quote to get a good handle on where Dr. Clark is coming from. Far be it from me to tell a Professor of History why confessions were written every 5-6 years during the 16th and 17th centuries. He knows why. The Reformed faith was in its infancy and what the Church believed needed to be established as opposed to other theologies, ie; the Canons of Dordt in response to the Remonstrants or the Standards in an attempt to establish a single confession for the Churches England, Scotland and Ireland.
But this comment taken by itself is inadequate and leaves a lot to be desired. Updating for the sake of up dating just because the churches of the 16th and 17th century did it is not much of an answer and that's why it has gotten the response it has. Yes, some hold to rather interesting views, but that does not mean that the current Confessions need to be scrapped and new ones take their place.
But then again Dr Clark knows full well that Confessions can be changed and have been. The Church has established a process for doing that very thing.
Full quote from website here:
Hi Jamie,
This is an excellent question. The short answer is yes, so long as the church does it openly. The confession is the summary of our (i.e. the institutional church’s) interpretation of Scripture. If our views have changed our confession should reflect that. It is a bit complicated when we haven’t confessed our faith anew for several hundred years. This is another good reason for a new confession. Our forefathers wrote confessions about every 5-6 years in the 16th-17th centuries. They would be shocked that we’re still using confessions from the 16th and 17th centuries. Don’t get me wrong. We should still confess substantially (and extensively) the same faith but, in the case of creation for example, I don’t think that we are as worried about a renewal of Augustine’s view (or the view the divines believed he held which was making a comeback) of instantaneous creation as they were. In the case of the Framework view, it’s been around for at least 50 years and nothing bad has happened. This is why WSC tolerates multiple approaches to reading Gen 1-2. We should confess what’s essential: a real, historic creation, a historic Adam and fall, the reality and truth of divine providence and concursus, the reality of nature (as opposed to the Platonists and Gnostics who deny it) and so forth.
The churches adopt and receive a confession with “intent.” This spirit of adoption colors the way a confession is read. The American Presbyterians in the 20th century have adopted the Westminster Standards to allow for a diversity of views on creation.
Further, there is evidence that the divines didn’t necessarily intend to bind the church to 6/24 creation — despite the fact that most of them likely believed in it.
It’s not that original intent is not important. It is! In the FV controversy original intent is crucial to defeating their subjective, self-serving, and radical re-interpretation of the confession.
There is also a distinction to be made as to those things that are of the essence of the Reformed faith and those things that are not. To hold this or that view of creation does not materially affect the Reformed faith. To hold this or that view of justification does.
Hi Jamie,
This is an excellent question. The short answer is yes, so long as the church does it openly. The confession is the summary of our (i.e. the institutional church’s) interpretation of Scripture. If our views have changed our confession should reflect that. It is a bit complicated when we haven’t confessed our faith anew for several hundred years. This is another good reason for a new confession. Our forefathers wrote confessions about every 5-6 years in the 16th-17th centuries. They would be shocked that we’re still using confessions from the 16th and 17th centuries. Don’t get me wrong. We should still confess substantially (and extensively) the same faith but, in the case of creation for example, I don’t think that we are as worried about a renewal of Augustine’s view (or the view the divines believed he held which was making a comeback) of instantaneous creation as they were. In the case of the Framework view, it’s been around for at least 50 years and nothing bad has happened. This is why WSC tolerates multiple approaches to reading Gen 1-2. We should confess what’s essential: a real, historic creation, a historic Adam and fall, the reality and truth of divine providence and concursus, the reality of nature (as opposed to the Platonists and Gnostics who deny it) and so forth.
The churches adopt and receive a confession with “intent.” This spirit of adoption colors the way a confession is read. The American Presbyterians in the 20th century have adopted the Westminster Standards to allow for a diversity of views on creation.
Further, there is evidence that the divines didn’t necessarily intend to bind the church to 6/24 creation — despite the fact that most of them likely believed in it.
It’s not that original intent is not important. It is! In the FV controversy original intent is crucial to defeating their subjective, self-serving, and radical re-interpretation of the confession.
There is also a distinction to be made as to those things that are of the essence of the Reformed faith and those things that are not. To hold this or that view of creation does not materially affect the Reformed faith. To hold this or that view of justification does.
Bygracealone
Puritan Board Sophomore
In reading the actual response from Dr. Clark, I found the next statement in his quote (not included in the quote from the original post) to be helpful in trying to understand what he's saying:
"Don’t get me wrong. We should still confess substantially (and extensively) the same faith [of our current confessions]..."
"Don’t get me wrong. We should still confess substantially (and extensively) the same faith [of our current confessions]..."
- Status
