Time For a New Reformed Confession?

[Marrow Man]

I know this is off topic just a bit but Danny Hyde's book is excellent on this topic. PCFLANAGAN and Pastor Tim should get a copy. In Defense of the Descent « Heritage Booktalk

Yes, thanks for the recommendation. I have downloaded the radio interview with Rev. Hyde where he discusses the book, but haven't listened to it yet. Having said that, I highly doubt either side would greatly disagree with either assertion that Jesus endured the hellish pain in suffering the wrath of God upon the cross (as with Calvin and if I am reading Q. 44 of the HC correctly) or that He really was dead (and therefore under its power) in the period between the crucifixion and the resurrection (per the WLC). What we seek to avoid (at least speaking for myself) is some Kenneth Copeland-esque idea of Jesus continuing to be tormented in the abode of the wicked. OTOH, I think there is a genuine fear among others that taking out the phrase may be reflective of theological liberalism which denies the existence of such a place.

There is another concern I have that is more directly applicable to the discussion of this thread. I heard in some corners that even in Reformed circles we need to adopt a less restrictive standard (read: minimalistic) such as the Apostles' Creed. We had this suggested in our own presbytery. The minister who raised the concern stated that the "strictness" of the WCF discouraged people from being members of his congregation. So he wanted to lower the membership requirements to affirming something simpler, such as the AC.

I, of course, argued against it on the floor of presbytery. While the AC is a fine creed, there are certain areas of doctrine it does not address. It makes no statement about Scripture, justification, etc. In short, a Roman Catholic could agree with it. The measure was roundly defeated in the presbytery (I'm not sure anyone besides the minister voted in favor of it). That minister, btw, is now in the CREC.

 

[Zenas]

You eventually recede to a point where you're no longer retaining any of the distinctive doctrines that make one a Presbyterian. I'm pleased such a measure failed not because we should retain our distinctives because they define us, but because we should retain them because they're true and that ought to define us.

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

Gents,

I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.

But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed, as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway), and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.

Cheers,

JJS

 

[Zenas]

I would be very interested in reading further.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Gents,

I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.

But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed, as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway), and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.

Cheers,

JJS

Instead, why don't we just quit allowing exceptions to be taught in the churches? This should never be happening.

 

[Scott1]

Comment below

Gents,

I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.

But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed,
It seems that there really are not new heresies, nor new serious doctrinal error really. We have old ones, repeated with different packaging. They seem new to us, but in substance, they are really the same as those of old.
as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway),Different denominations have different ways of dealing with exceptions, scruples. We would need to see the list of exceptions that are broadly granted across the presbyteries to see what, if any, we are talking about. and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.
It seems though, this is precisely the pretext for calling for this- is it not?
Also, if the exceptions are being granted by everyone anyway, why not go through the Amendment process?- the Standards can be amended through a deliberative process.
Cheers,

JJS

Instead, why don't we just quit allowing exceptions to be taught in the churches? This should never be happening.

Historically, Presbyterianism has allowed "scruples" and I think for good reason. I'm not sure of a better mechanism than thorough scrutiny by a spiritual jury of peers of exceptions with a high level denominational overview.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Comment below

Gents,

I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.

But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed,
It seems that there really are not new heresies, nor new serious doctrinal error really. We have old ones, repeated with different packaging. They seem new to us, but in substance, they are really the same as those of old.
as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway),Different denominations have different ways of dealing with exceptions, scruples. We would need to see the list of exceptions that are broadly granted across the presbyteries to see what, if any, we are talking about. and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.
It seems though, this is precisely the pretext for calling for this- is it not?
Also, if the exceptions are being granted by everyone anyway, why not go through the Amendment process?- the Standards can be amended through a deliberative process.
Cheers,

JJS

Instead, why don't we just quit allowing exceptions to be taught in the churches? This should never be happening.

Historically, Presbyterianism has allowed "scruples" and I think for good reason. I'm not sure of a better mechanism than thorough scrutiny by a spiritual jury of peers of exceptions with a high level denominational overview.

But not to be taught in the churches, though. A "scruple" allows a man to be ordained despite his exception. It does not allow him to teach contra the Confession of the church in which he is ordained.

 

[Marrow Man]

Historically, Presbyterianism has allowed "scruples" and I think for good reason. I'm not sure of a better mechanism than thorough scrutiny by a spiritual jury of peers of exceptions with a high level denominational overview.

But not to be taught in the churches, though. A "scruple" allows a man to be ordained despite his exception. It does not allow him to teach contra the Confession of the church in which he is ordained.

Precisely! The problem with have (and I am speaking of my own denomination now) is that you have men who have declared exceptions but who are also openly teaching against the Confession. For example, R.J. Gore writes a book contra the RPW. Jay Adams writes a book (and teaches a SS class) against the WCF view of the Sabbath.

These things should not be. It's one thing to hold the exception; it's another to openly teach against the WCF.

 

[Grimmson]

Gents,

I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.

But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed, as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway), and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.

Cheers,

JJS

You can see Scott Clark argue for writing a new confession in Recovering the Reformed Confession. A partial sample of the first chapter and the table of contents can be found here, http://www.wscal.edu/clark/frntmtrthruch1.pdf .

I would suggest reading the book on this issue and I do understand the attachment we all have to our subscribed confession. I do think there are intelligent and spiritually wise people today who could gather together and write out a confession if they actually tried; to some degree to think that only the Divines could and we cannot places the Divines in a superior spiritual and intellectual position, which in my opinion is dangerous and not right. Then again I am a Baptist.

I wish I could continue with this post, but atlas I cannot; this is a post and run.
I have a few more things to do before it gets to late, before my four month mad-rush insanity period begins in a couple of days.

 

[earl40]

Not to stray too far off the subject....Would it be OK to word the WCF as if George Will didn't write it in sundry times, and in divers manners?

 

[Zenas]

You'd still have to write a new Confession. To my knowledge, they sometimes argued for extended periods of time over the mere choice of words so as to foreclose certain implications from arising due to imprecise wording. The way it is worded, while dated, is part of the Confession.

 

[Scott1]

Riley,
My understanding in the PCA, and different denominations may be handling this in other ways, is that the presbytery is understood to have the authority to prevent a candidate from teaching his exception to the standard.

That is, this is within the plenary power of a Presbytery in examining and licensing a candidate for office.

So, for example, if a candidate was granted a sabbath recreation clause exception (for "light" recreation) to Westminster XXVII, it would be within the Presbytery to forbid that the nonconfessional view be taught as doctrine.

In practice, it's probably likely many do not give an express direction with regard to something they are classifying as "non fundamental" and certainly as "merely semantic" (PCA present system), but I think even in those cases there is an implied responsibility to explain both the confessed view, respectfully and the excepted view.

It seems, in practice, in such a situation, most likely the candidate simply tries to avoid addressing the issue directly, under implied oath.

There has been some discussion about this in recent years- some have proposed a requirement to present the confessional view and then allow them to present their excepted view, but this has only been a matter of discussion.

 

[earl40]

You'd still have to write a new Confession. To my knowledge, they sometimes argued for extended periods of time over the mere choice of words so as to foreclose certain implications from arising due to imprecise wording. The way it is worded, while dated, is part of the Confession.

I am curious if it translates well in other languages.

 

[Zenas]

No idea how they go about that. I'm unsure if they kept minutes, but I'm sure that's a helpful resource if available.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.

 

[Covenant Joel]

I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.

I really don't know that most of what people have said here accurately characterizes the post/proposal. So to make such a judgment seems quite premature.

 

[Wayne]

Chris: Doesn't Gillespie make the point somewhere (Miscellany Questions?) that we ought to be about discovering as much of the will of God as possible?
Which would mean that we should never give ground on the advance of doctrine. In this larger discussion, it seems like Gillespie's would be one good work to dust off and revisit.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Seems to me to have a confession 'we can all agree with it' is exactly one where those Puritan burrs like Lord's day observance, idolatry (depictions of Christ), and the regulative principle, will go on the chopping block as doctrines to uphold, exactly at a time when we are seeing some new vigor and interest in upholding them. My theory: a new confession will be a deterrent to redigging the wells and recovering what we have lost. Wayne, I will have to check for that place in Gillespie. It does not ring a bell.

 

[Scott1]

It would seem to me that amendment to the Confession is, and has always been available. If one wanted to eliminate a section, the amendment process is available.

To suggest re-writing the Confession, en toto, implies a new better discerned systematic theology has been discovered, and broadly agreed.

Where is that?

 

[py3ak]

Even if Gillespie didn't address it, doesn't Philippians 3:15,16 prevent us from letting attained doctrine slide?

 

[Edward]

why it might make sense, particularly at this time in the PCA.

I would suggest that this time in the PCA is the best reason for NOT writing a new confession.

I admit that I view these moves in the PCA through a historical lens. Let's not forget the contributions that the 1967 Confession made in the progression of what is now the PCUSA.

 

[Calvinus]

Here are some problems. The modern day Presbyterian and Reformed churches have problems. My friend who attempted to bring problems to the attention of the elders was faced with dismissal. This church is well known in the Grand Rapids area.

He was the pastor and confronted some of the elders for saying one thing about the keeping the Sabbath holy and yet had businesses open on Sunday along with employees working on Sunday. He also wanted to address the issue of the plate glass behind the pulpit which had a representation of Christ. The elders, in their wisdom and understanding of their confessional standards, dismissed him.

I attend a PCA church and yet when I protested the showing of Mel Gibson's Roman Catholic "Passion" movie, I was looked upon with incredulity - after all Christ is fully human and so he should be able to be represented!

I also protested one elder (on again, off again) who taught a Sunday school class using Norman Geisler's "Chosen But Free." I was told that it was a moderate approach to Calvinism.

I also protested one man who under the supervision of an elder, was teaching NPP doctrine. Of course this church is directly involved with WTS East's extension in Dallas.

The elders showed themselves to be utterly incapable of spiritual and intellectual discernment. It is an old boys club and they close ranks when they feel threatened or when their actions are called into question. So I shut up and bide my time. The OPC has its problems as well. I attended one OPC church where the elders made decisions on the fitness of young men going off to seminary and whether or not they would be supported spiritually and financially. Two of the elders, at the time they were making such determinations, were committing adultery and one was abusing his wife.

No, I don't think we have a generation capable of making changes or rewriting the standards of our churches. These standards were created literally with blood, sweat, and tears. The men involved were intellectual and spiritual giants compared to what we have in our seminaries and churches. One example is Gillespie. Do we have a Gillespie today? Not even close. Do we have a Bullinger, or a Calvin, or a Peter Martyr Vermigli? Not a chance! Do we have a Francis Turretine or a Charles Hodge or a W.G.T. Shedd, a R.L. Dabney? What about hymns with theological content instead of sentiment? What about what passes for a sermon these days?

So who is going to write a new confession or new standards for our Presbyterian and Reformed churches? The whole idea is laughable!

 

[MW]

George Gillespie provides some sound cautions with respect to "new light" in his Treatise of Miscellany Questions, 52-57:

it is but a false new light which expels not only the old darkness, but much of the good old light. As in medicines the Paraclesian way is most dangerous when it is destructive to the Galenic way, and overthrows the old approved principles. Yet it is of very good use when prudently and skillfully managed, for perfecting the Galenic way, and for doing things more speedily, easily, and pleasantly, than the Galenic way could do. So in divinity, such new lights as do not expel, but retain, improve, and perfect the old, may be of singular good use; but those new lights which are destructive and expulsive of the old true lights, those new ways which lead us away from the old and the good way, are to be utterly disliked and avoided. 2 John, ver. 8, "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought." He speaks it against those deceivers who would have seduced them from the doctrine of Christ, as is evident, both from the preceding verse, and from that which follows, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God," etc. Rom. 16:17, "Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." A bishop, says Paul, Titus 1:9, must hold "fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught." Phil 3:16, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." This he adds as a prevention of a dangerous mistake and abuse of that which he had said immediately before, "And if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."

take heed of proud, and lofty, and self-conceited new lights, 1 Cor. 14:32-33, "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." If the spirits of the prophets must be so subject, how much more the spirits of private persons. Wherefore, in a reformed church, all pretended new lights, which are against the received doctrine, government, or form of worship, ought to be, in all humility and submission, offered to be tried by a learned and godly synod.

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.

This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.

 

[beej6]

I've thought about this too since Dr. Clark made the suggestion in his book. In our day, the first chapter of such a new confession, In my humble opinion, would be not on the Scripture (though I believe the WCF properly puts it there), but on "Confessionalism" - why a confession at all? I'd probably add a section in that chapter to the effect that my new confession is not meant to contradict or supplant a WCF or 3FU but to refine and further it if possible.
I've even thought that such a new confession could be based on an outline such as Dr. Morton Smith's in his _Systematic Theology_ though that may be too detailed for a confession.
Confessions provide bounds for ministers to preach, and areas of agreement for fellowship and unity. It would be telling if a representative group of any denomination, or of NAPARC, couldn't agree within two or three years on a confession. And there are plenty of new/old issues to write on - inerrancy, eschatology, cessationalism, justification...

 

[Scott1]

I've thought about this too since Dr. Clark made the suggestion in his book. In our day, the first chapter of such a new confession, In my humble opinion, would be not on the Scripture (though I believe the WCF properly puts it there), but on "Confessionalism" - why a confession at all? I'd probably add a section in that chapter to the effect that my new confession is not meant to contradict or supplant a WCF or 3FU but to refine and further it if possible.
I've even thought that such a new confession could be based on an outline such as Dr. Morton Smith's in his _Systematic Theology_ though that may be too detailed for a confession.
Confessions provide bounds for ministers to preach, and areas of agreement for fellowship and unity. It would be telling if a representative group of any denomination, or of NAPARC, couldn't agree within two or three years on a confession. And there are plenty of new/old issues to write on - inerrancy, eschatology, cessationalism, justification...

It doesn't seem the "problem" supposed would be solved by a new Confession.

Imagine that, as has been suggested, a new Confession is written with new sections added to address "new" heresies and other sections removed- those where supposed majorities of presbyteries would grant "exceptions" (scruples) "anyway."

First, these "heresies" are not really new, they are repackaged historical error. Second, those violating their confession now (e.g. with 'federal vision') are going to try to assign double meaning to the words as they do now, or they are not going to "confess" or they are going to write their "own" confession. If the latter, we would have competing confessions on key points within the reformed tradition, at least claiming to be reformed. NONE of these further clarity, unity, or the peace and purity of the church which is the basis for unity.

Presbyteries, in the PCA at least, admit a candidate based on any individual exception but also based on the totality of his theological fitness so there is not even an apples-to-apples comparison of "exceptions" that could be eliminated "because they are being granted anyway." For example on the sabbath recreation clause, some take exception only for "light" recreation, others for all "recreation." So, we couldn't even define that as a basis of unity in a new confession.

There may be, but I'm not familiar with a single exception that would be granted by every Presbytery. If there is, there are many that would not be. So, what about the Presbyteries that would not grant an exception to a point of doctrine- how are they going to unify based on a confession that ignores a fundamental point of doctrine?

The Westminster Confession was produced in the face of institutional falling away in the church by many men who were risking their lives. We don't have this same situation today.

It seems we have, in this generation, more of a prideful individualism, and among theologians who would differentiate fine points of doctrine that the layman often cannot understand, far less apply in their lives. The Confession is for all God's people- a summary of Christian faith and practice. It has served that purpose very well for centuries.

The Confession is not a product to suit an elite diverse collection of ideas, it is a cogent summary for God's people to unify on as a basis for Christian faith and practice.

Imagine if the esteemed gentleman from California were to write the Confession- how many people agree with him now at every point- even in his own denomination? How far is this going to get?

The difficulty here is we are not understanding the problem, far less the "solution."

The problem is sin. It is the ongoing disobedience of human beings to authority. That's not going to be eliminated in any re-write.

To the contrary, it is going to further fray the authority God has placed in His Church, and further a notion "that each man does what is right in his own eyes." This is not a new problem for the church, nor will it be until our Lord returns.

Know what this is all about?

Church discipline.

We are seeing in our generation nothing new- doing church discipline is difficult. It does not, thankfully require perfection, only obedience and faith.

That's what's lacking in the main in this whole discussion-

OBEDIENCE AND FAITH

And no "problem" in Christ's Body can be solved without them.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I actually argued for this idea, early on in my PB days:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/new-confession-12257/

I retract what I formerly said.

I do not believe that the churches need a new confession, but need to go back to affirming what we already have. As has been pointed out, the pattern of confessionalism is supposed to be a progression, advancing in precision and accuracy in handling the Word of God. But the current tendency is regression; and were a new confession to be drafted, I fear what would be the result -- what we would lose in the process.

We do not need different subordinate standards. We (both church officers and church members) need to understand, believe, teach, and practice the subordinate standards which we already have. (With the RP Testimony, which needs some modification in order to bring it back in line with the original Westminster Standards.)

And let us not speak of exceptions, scruples, or any other such thing. If it is the teaching of Scripture, it is the teaching of Scripture. If you think that creation was not "in the space of six days," if you think worldly recreations are lawful on the Sabbath, if you think that we may add human inventions to the worship of God, you may find yourself a church that agrees with you in these things. But let not the church speak out of two sides of her mouth, and declare such things to be important enough for every one of our subordinate standards to give an unequivocal decision, while admitting those who despise such principles to be members or officers in our churches.

 

[jayce475]

I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.

This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.

Rev Stellman, I do believe that the many of the people on this thread have read it and genuinely disagree with the points that you have raised. Since you are not only advocating for a PCA-only confessional document but one for all Reformed denominations, it seems reasonable for me to make some points.

"The unmistakable assumption here is that Catholics are not Christians. Now this is much stronger than the way we usually put it, which goes something like this: “Those who heartily embrace Rome’s teaching are not Christians, yet there are true believers within the Catholic Church.” Sure, WCF xxiv.3 is not as strong as calling the pope the antichrist (we graciously took that bit out), but it still equates Catholics with “infidels and other idolaters” to the point that no true believer can marry one."

Yes, Roman Catholics are not Christians, otherwise they are not Roman Catholics anymore. Christians within the RC will necessarily come out of it when they see the truth and the darkness of the RC. Marrying one who still claims to be a Roman Catholic is as clear a case of unequal yoke as we can ever have, so what exactly is the issue? On this point, you are claiming that many differ from the Westminster divines and Reformers on something as fundamental as this. Is this not compromise? I sincerely hope that you would not be in support of a sheep under your care marrying a professing Roman Catholic.

"Setting aside the fact that Rayburn does not believe Leithart’s teachings to be in conflict with the Standards (a point about which we strongly disagree), I do think he makes an interesting point. Why should we have confessions or catechisms that contain loads of statements that we all agree are not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine? Why include “in the space of six days” if it can be disagreed with? Why affirm that Paul wrote Hebrews if none of us really believes he did? Why say that the Bible frequently calls the covenant a testament if the claim is false on its face? Why forbid images of Jesus of Nazareth if virtually every children’s Bible or Sunday School curriculum violates this?"

Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which I do affirm) and calling the the New Convenant a testament (which I do affirm as well) are dissimilar to the other two that you have raised. The Westminster standards do not have a position on the former, and I acknowledge that, so it is somewhat curious why you have mentioned it. With regards to the latter, well, let's just say it is not at the same level as the other points that you have raised. The other issues are fundamental and you are saying that we ought to agree to disagree on such fundamental issues. Is that not compromise? We are now talking about not subscribing to the historical 6-24 position and not following the second commandment. Adding to the part on unequal yoke, we can potentially have an theistic evolutionist and second commandment flouting Christian minister who has married a Roman Catholic wife who is still in bondage to the RCC. That would be sad, and deeply compromising. On top of that that has already been mentioned, I also wonder if the compromise would also spread to cessationism?

At the end of the day, what is the point of having a new confession? If it is to start introducing such compromises in the name of unity, surely biblical unity has to be built on biblical truth. As previously mentioned, it would be really sad if more Reformed denominations end up the way of PCUSA.

If however, it is felt that there is a need to update the language of the standards, few would object and it has already been done. If it has to do with countering modern heresies, are not the current standards sufficient? The stance on cessationism is clear; the covenantal framework of scriptures is clear; and the position on God's sovereignty is clear. Please show how the standards are inadequate in dealing with these issues if there is a felt need for more to be written. In accusing the standards of containing unnecessary fat, please show how that is so as well.

If there is a fully valid reason for rewriting the confessions and there are the godly people to do so, few would object. But as it stands, the arguments that you have presented don't seem all that convincing and seem to point towards compromise more than anything. It is bad enough to have ministers within a denomination who are compromising, as it is in all denominations, but surely the point is to stop the rot and not joining them in the compromise.

 

[beej6]

Know what this is all about?

Church discipline.

We are seeing in our generation nothing new- doing church discipline is difficult. It does not, thankfully require perfection, only obedience and faith.

That's what's lacking in the main in this whole discussion-

OBEDIENCE AND FAITH

And no "problem" in Christ's Body can be solved without them.

Oh, Scott, I have no problem with what you say. Certainly if discipline of those outside the bounds were taken more seriously, then those bounds would be "easier" to spot.
The other piece is if a significant group wishes to change the Confession, then let them use their church's mechanism to do so.

My fear is what is happening, or will happen eventually if it isn't happening where you are, is that the Confession is being changed anyway *without* such procedure, or churches will just give lip service to their Confession.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.

This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.

Rev. Stellman, I read the the blog and Chris makes good sense to me. I honestly believe you have set up some straw men in your blog. For example, the casting lots issue, the Roman Catholic marriage issue, and the issue of whether or not any ordained man actually believes the issues you raise are strawmen, in my opinion. The Standards are set. If someone doesn't adhere to them he should be honest and let the courts decide. If he doesn't like or approve them then maybe he should just cross the Tiber so to speak or where ever he decides to land. The oath and vow are something that is not taken seriously and is lacking in our society just as reverence for God's Holy name. Just because that is true should not make them any less more serious. I think you would agree with me when you look at the marriage problems you have to confront. The Standard is the Standard. Just because men don't like the Standard doesn't mean it should be changed because ordained men or laymen don't understand, know, or approve of them.

BTW, who in the world casts lots now days? That is just stupid. We have a more Sure Word spoken by and given by our Lord now days in the Canon. JMO. Let the Standards be the Standard and if someone doesn't like them let them go else where or pursue the purity and unity of the Church. What fellowship does light have with darkness?

Remember. 1 Corinthians 15:33 and be careful who you decide to play ball with. Why not just change the confessions to make them say what the Federal Vision wants. Many a better man than you or I spilled blood and studied much more than you or I ever will to pen the confessions. Are we better in understanding? I think not.

Just as an add on..... I do believe the Confessions address Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism, and Open Theism. What Confession are you reading?