Time For a New Reformed Confession?

[Scott1]

Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine.

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?

As one who has not requested exception, no. Every doctrine, though difficult, like the sabbath, are faithful summary of Scripture.

We would be left with very little, something like a short list of essentials, which is not even distinctly reformed.

Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it.

I'm not familiar enough with the alternative views to comment only that, there is not any evidence any of the Westminster Divines believed the alternate modern views, so it is best handled as an exception, and evaluated both individually from the standpoint of the system as well as within the context of the totality of their biblical theology.

It doesn't seem avoiding that brings clarity, integrity, or unity.

n other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?

I don't think anything needs to be said louder. That's why it is written down in careful, concise manner so even the layman can learn from and understand it.

Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more?

Not if what it says now is all biblical and important truth.

All this would do is further divide and confuse God's people, especially in reformed churches.

For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.

For that logic, why not remove the parts about murder, lying, cheating and stealing? (By the way, I don't think there is evidence there is much, if any, difference between continent and puritan on sabbath. The Dutch were/are some of the strongest advocates of keeping the sabbath holy.

Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either.

We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this?

We already have such a Confession.

All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.

No Standard can be possibly fully obeyed in this Life. Not the ten commandments, not the doctrine summarized in the historic Confessions. Perfect obedience is only in Christ. It's Christ's righteousness alone that saves us.

You, of all people, must know this.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine.

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?

Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it.

In other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?

Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more? For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.

Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either.

We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this? All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.

I think I hear what you're saying, and if what I think you're saying is in fact what you are saying, then I agree with the point of what you are saying.

Frankly, I receive the Standards of my church without exception, and I wish that everyone - and every presbytery and every particular congregation - were as committed to adhering to the Standards as are the overwhelming majority of the folks here on the PB.

But unfortunately, not everyone in the Reformed world are as people on the PB are.

I for one, think it begs the legitimate question - if not accusation - of whether or not some in the Reformed world are venerating a document when they vehemently reject the idea of changes to the standards even as they take one exception after another to them.

Again - how can we seriously say we receive something as a Standard when, in practice, we do not?

I happen to believe that when we say a Confession reflects the Bible's teaching, that we should in fact believe it. And if Samuel Miller was correct in that confessions are necessary to define boundaries and limits for association and fellowship, then by way of example, we should not declare as a Standard of our church that we believe the world and all that is in it was made in the span of 6 days, and then allow anyone and everyone to disagree. At some point, claims of adhering to the Standard seem to ring a little hollow for me.

I say - either "rework" the Confessional standards of our church to accurately reflect what we believe (yes, using generic enough language to allow for the breadth of currently allowable positions) or actually enforce the current Confession.

But as I see it, the root problem is allowing exceptions to be made. Neither keeping the current document nor engaging in periodic revisions will prevent drift as long as we allow exceptions.

I'm calling for honesty and consistency. That's it.

 

[Scott1]

While the line of reasoning that as long as we have any scruples allowed, we cannot have unity is attractive, it does not logically follow that a new confession would be immune from the same thing.

Some may not agree, but I think careful deliberative review of scruples toward their substance and the system of doctrine actually encourages officers and church members to take their vows, and the doctrine more seriously.
(Now, this is not an argument at all for theological liberty, not for automatic granting, etc., only that this kind of review is both healthy and necessary, in light of the falleness of man and the professed infallibility of the Standards).

No Confession is infallible, nor ever could be, because our understanding is not infallible, so implying that it could be attributes something to the nature of human being affected by the Fall that Scripture does not.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Some may not agree, but I think careful deliberative review of scruples toward their substance and the system of doctrine actually encourages officers and church members to take their vows, and the doctrine more seriously.

So that I'm understanding you correctly - are you saying that the individual propositions of the Standards aren't the really important part, and instead what is key is adherence to the "substance" and "system of doctrine" found in it? Would this mean, then, that adhering to a specific point in the confession isn't as important as standing up and just saying, "I believe that the 'Reformed system' is right on." ?

 

[Scott1]

Some may not agree, but I think careful deliberative review of scruples toward their substance and the system of doctrine actually encourages officers and church members to take their vows, and the doctrine more seriously.

So that I'm understanding you correctly - are you saying that the individual propositions of the Standards aren't the really important part, and instead what is key is adherence to the "substance" and "system of doctrine" found in it? Would this mean, then, that adhering to a specific point in the confession isn't as important as standing up and just saying, "I believe that the 'Reformed system' is right on." ?

It seems wise the way our PCA system approaches this by requiring a vow of comprehensive understanding of and agreement with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards or a requirement to state, and have evaluated any "difference." Differences can be (merely) semantic, and non-fundamental or fundamental.

But the candidate (for office) is evaluated in a couple ways- the difference in terms of its own individual merit AND in terms of its impact on the "system of doctrine" as a whole. And again, the totality of the candidates fitness for office is evaluated for ordination (exemplary life and doctrinal understanding).

This sets a very high bar for scruples, as it should be.

The fact that one person is granted a fact specific exemption (which may be quite fact specific qualified), does not make the standard, because exceptions are just that- exceptions.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The fact that one person is granted a fact specific exemption (which may be quite fact specific qualified), does not make the standard, as in calling for a new standard, because exceptions are just that- exceptions.

But when the preponderence of folks take "exception" to something, it seems that the exception has become the new de facto norm of what is actually believed and taught, while the "standard" is the practical, functional, exception to that. Think about that for a bit.

 

[Scott1]

The fact that one person is granted a fact specific exemption (which may be quite fact specific qualified), does not make the standard, as in calling for a new standard, because exceptions are just that- exceptions.

But when the preponderance of folks take "exception" to something, it seems that the exception has become the new de facto norm of what is actually believed and taught, while the "standard" is the practical, functional, exception to that. Think about that for a bit.

As we know, it's not quite that simple. Exceptions are requested, on the record, and evaluated by a spiritual jury of peers (presbytery). There is no right to their being granted, and it is the duty of presbytery to carefully investigate them individually and in terms of their implications with other doctrine.

In many presbyteries, just because an exception is granted, that does not mean there is permission to teach it. It's a burden to carry an exception as it ought be, but still allows for sake of conscience. I think that has to be there. And it doesn't necessarily destroy the doctrine, let alone the system.

This is nothing new- historic Presbyterianism has always recognized this.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The fact that one person is granted a fact specific exemption (which may be quite fact specific qualified), does not make the standard, as in calling for a new standard, because exceptions are just that- exceptions.

But when the preponderance of folks take "exception" to something, it seems that the exception has become the new de facto norm of what is actually believed and taught, while the "standard" is the practical, functional, exception to that. Think about that for a bit.

As we know, it's not quite that simple. Exceptions are requested, on the record, and evaluated by a spiritual jury of peers (presbytery). There is no right to their being granted, and it is the duty of presbytery to carefully investigate them individually and in terms of their implications with other doctrine.

In many presbyteries, just because an exception is granted, that does not mean there is permission to teach it. It's a burden to carry an exception as it ought be, but still allows for sake of conscience. I think that has to be there. And it doesn't necessarily destroy the doctrine, let alone the system.

This is nothing new- historic Presbyterianism has always recognized this.

Scott- you're missing the forest for the trees.

How does a given Standard serve as anything other than an historical marker that we "confess" for the profound sense of historical continuity we get from "confessing" it when we don't agree with it? The very act of allowing an exception to it undermines a claim of thinking it is an important identifier of group thought.

Anyway, you have an idealized notion of the "gravity" of an exception. Yes, yes, we have procedural rules for how to do something, but have you ever felt the cynical gaze of someone in your own denomination who thinks you're either foolish or lying precisely because you DON'T take exceptions? Have you? I have, on multiple occasions, and I'm "just" a chaplain, not a pastor who is regularly involved with other officers of the Church! Contrary to what I'm supposed to say, our Standards - in too many places - aren't really the Standard. I can regale you with tales from sundry ministers that might turn you, well, white.

 

[Scott1]

Glad they are the Standard for you, Ben.

The point has been made regarding the premise that allowing exceptions has somehow created necessity for a new confession, which new confession will solve the problem, so I'll not address it further here.

 

[MW]

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?

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.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

This ought to be framed. That's the heart of the issue. Rather than "turning white" at the winks and nods that men give to exceptions I fear for men who would stand before God and promise to uphold standards with fingers crossed as if God does not see all.

Men rise to the level of expectations. Lower the bar and all you've done is created an even easier Standard to ignore because the backbone and integrity of the men affirming the new Confession will still not exist to prosecute those who violate the new Standards.

I can't conceive how the new Standard could protect the flock from Leithart and Rayburn if the current "strict" Standard proves to be too neglected an instrument in the hands of those who ought to be upholding the Constiution we presently possess. I'm less concerned with calls for unity right now then the condemnation of Ezekiel 34.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine.

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?

Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it.

In other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?

Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more? For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.

Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either.

We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this? All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.

Rev. Stellman,

I don't believe in "system subscription." That is not the historic view of my Synod (or our body of churches throughout the world). Having once gained the truth on the subject, we would be dishonest to God and to our own consciences to relinquish such things as "in the space of six days," and the glorious precision we have on the Sabbath; and having once relinquished them, we are in a bad place to continue the trend. I don't believe that Sabbath-breaking is acceptable from church members (certainly not church officers); nor do I think that violations of the second commandment are acceptable (pictures of Christ, hymn singing, instrumental accompaniment, etc.). When obedience or disobedience to the law of God is at stake, we cannot make exceptions. You are presently experiencing the result of system subscription in your church court battles. -- And I cannot see that your proposal would work for the Dutch Reformed (who require all professing members to "profess the true reformed religion") or for us Covenanters (who will never relinquish unaccompanied exclusive psalmody as the doctrine and practice of our church).

Of course, the actual doctrine and practice of the Sabbath amongst Dutch Reformed often excels that of the Three Forms. Rev. Ray Lanning in Grand Rapids once told me an interesting ecclesiastical saga, part of which involved his query to a man raised Netherlands Reformed, what the Sabbath practice was in those churches? His reply was "About three steps to the right of Westminster."

 

[SolaScriptura]

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.

I agree, but I don't see a need to limit it to the modern reformed church... as I look at the history of confessional churches, it seems that confessional purity has a hard time lasting longer than a couple generations before slide and drift occur. What, if anything, can be done about that?

 

[MW]

I agree, but I don't see a need to limit it to the modern reformed church... as I look at the history of confessional churches, it seems that confessional purity has a hard time lasting longer than a couple generations before slide and drift occur. What, if anything, can be done about that?

Good point! The Church of Scotland faced these issues immediately after requiring the signing of a formula. But it does seem the "authentic self" of post modernism poses a threat to traditional values in a way other philosophical trends were inept to do.

What can be done? It is a good question which has often met with a wrong answer resulting in disastrous consequences (1 Samuel 4:3). The answer obviously is not to pretend that we have the power to inwardly constrain men to act honourably. There was a time when the church felt its need to set apart days for fasting, humiliation, and confession of sin. The Church of Scotland was accustomed to bind up a document called "A solemn acknowledgment of publick sins and breaches of the covenant" with its confessional standards. It would be very easy to look for sociological or psychological causes and remedies to the problems we face; but the truth is that the church has always fought with the very worst dynamics set against it and has only triumphed because the Lord was on her side. If as a church we are losing the battle then as a church we must take responsibility and humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord that He may lift us up.

 

[Marrow Man]

Completely different historical circumstances. There was a civil war going on. The Westminster assembly was actually called by Parliament to rewrite the 39 Articles, but early in the process there came the realization that a simply revision was not going to be sufficient. They later called for Scottish commissioners to help with writing the Confession. And the Scots liked it so much that they traded the Scots Confession for the WCF! Which is actually one of those historical ironies, because if the Scots had not, the WCF may have landed in the dustbin of history, since it did not become the confessional standard for the Church of England because of subsequent English historical developments after 1647.

And the "completely different" historical circumstances matter how?

Do you mean to imply that if the civil authorities ask/tell us to come up with something then fine, but the Body of Christ cannot take that initiative?

Erastianism was rampant Ben. You know that. The work was done in a way that refuted it. The Standards were far more complete and theologically correct. In fact to answer the original question Tim was addressing, I do believe that all the resources were used in comparison. That is why it took so long to complete the Standards. It was more definitive and right.

BTW, I don't hold to the Standards because I want to look like a Puritan or Reformed. I hold to them because they are what the scriptures teach in my estimation. Even the Creation stuff is important to me. I think the creation account matters in how we view and approach the scriptures. While I am not a paedo baptist I still strongly hold to the Standards and I am honest about where I disagree.

Just as a note of reminder....
The 1689 LBCF is recognized as a Reformed Confession on this board.

What Randy said.

Or, to say it a different way, there's a big difference between coming together to write a confession in an attempt to preserve the Reformed faith from the machinations of oppressive crypto-catholic monarchs, and desiring to construct a minimalist confession because some folks like pictures of Jesus, think the RPW is too restrictive, like to watch NFL on Sundays, and think YEC is scientifically naive. I understand not everyone who wants a new confession necessarily wants it for the reasons of the latter, but that's the kind of thing we would get. Minimalism in the guise of unity and harmony. But that is a completely different historical circumstance.

I would add that there was extensive use made of another confession not mentioned -- the Irish Articles.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Rev. Stellman,

Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?

NAPARC is not a church.

I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to see. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?

No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).

In my experience visiting a URCNA, all you need to tell them is that you are a member in good standing of another reformed (NAPARC) church, and that is good enough form them to admit you to the supper.

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

Rev. Stellman,

Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?

NAPARC is not a church.

I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to see. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?

No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).

In my experience visiting a URCNA, all you need to tell them is that you are a member in good standing of another reformed (NAPARC) church, and that is good enough form them to admit you to the supper.

Not at Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim (Riddlebarger's church). I got taken into a private room and was quizzed on Calvin's view of Christ's presence in the Supper. When I passed their test I asked what would have happened if I gave a memorialist answer, and I was told they'd have denied me access. But if I had given a Lutheran answer I would've been admitted.

 

[Christusregnat]

But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines,

This is an arbitrary parameter: the Confession and Catechisms ARE our core doctrines!

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Rev. Stellman,

Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?

NAPARC is not a church.

I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to see. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?

No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).

In my experience visiting a URCNA, all you need to tell them is that you are a member in good standing of another reformed (NAPARC) church, and that is good enough form them to admit you to the supper.

Not at Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim (Riddlebarger's church). I got taken into a private room and was quizzed on Calvin's view of Christ's presence in the Supper. When I passed their test I asked what would have happened if I gave a memorialist answer, and I was told they'd have denied me access. But if I had given a Lutheran answer I would've been admitted.

All I've got to say is, weird. Something about those Modern Reformation/White Horse guys strikes me as crypto-Lutheran.

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines,

This is an arbitrary parameter: the Confession and Catechisms ARE our core doctrines!

Then why do we already allow people to deny them? If the Westminster Standards are our core doctrines, full stop, then every time we allow someone to espouse a non-literal creation-day position, or a looser view of recreation on the Sabbath, we are allowing him to disregard our core doctrines.

I agree that we need to be able to equate "the system of doctrine" with the confession we subscribe (that's kind of my whole point), but we don't do that, at least not in the PCA. And I would argue that we really can't, at least not without getting rid of all the stuff we allow exceptions to. Or, we could just stop allowing exceptions altogether.

 

[Christusregnat]

Or, we could just stop allowing exceptions altogether.

Agreed!

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

Here's a follow-up:

Creed Code Cult: On Saying Less More Loudly

 

[Romans922]

I know I am late on this one, but Jason said something similar to "Why don't we get rid of all the exceptions that are allowed today?" Just last year Metro Atlanta Presbytery allowed an exception to WSC 3. So we should throw the catechism question out on Scripture. I'm sure there have been worse exceptions allowed than that. I don't understand why exceptions should be allowed and why men can't be honest.

Isn't it true in the URC (which holds to 3 forms of unity) that exceptions aren't taken. You either accept the whole thing or you don't. If you don't you can't be a minister in the URC. Why is this not possible in the PCA, OPC?

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

I know I am late on this one, but Jason said something similar to "Why don't we get rid of all the exceptions that are allowed today?" Just last year Metro Atlanta Presbytery allowed an exception to WSC 3. So we should throw the catechism question out on Scripture. I'm sure there have been worse exceptions allowed than that. I don't understand why exceptions should be allowed and why men can't be honest.

Isn't it true in the URC (which holds to 3 forms of unity) that exceptions aren't taken. You either accept the whole thing or you don't. If you don't you can't be a minister in the URC. Why is this not possible in the PCA, OPC?

I think the detailed nature of the Westminster Standards disallows it, at least for the majority of ministers in the PCA and OPC. That's been my point all along.

 

[jayce475]

I know I am late on this one, but Jason said something similar to "Why don't we get rid of all the exceptions that are allowed today?" Just last year Metro Atlanta Presbytery allowed an exception to WSC 3. So we should throw the catechism question out on Scripture. I'm sure there have been worse exceptions allowed than that. I don't understand why exceptions should be allowed and why men can't be honest.

Isn't it true in the URC (which holds to 3 forms of unity) that exceptions aren't taken. You either accept the whole thing or you don't. If you don't you can't be a minister in the URC. Why is this not possible in the PCA, OPC?

I think the detailed nature of the Westminster Standards disallows it, at least for the majority of ministers in the PCA and OPC. That's been my point all along.

And the solution to that is for this "majority of ministers in the PCA and OPC" to start believing in the scriptures as per the standards, not to come up with standards that fit them. I'm sure everyone gets what you want, in that you wish for us to major in the major and minor in the minor. Who doesn't? Problem is, these exceptions and points of contention are not minor. At least not the way PBers see it, as evidenced by the responses we have seen so far. Non-literal 6-24, unequal yoke with RCC, violations of the Sabbath, violations of the 2nd commandment, and other such points, are not minor and we do not wish to compromise on them.

 

[Scott1]

Rev. Stellman,

Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?

NAPARC is not a church.

No, in and of itself it is not- but one of its founding purposes was to provide a way of eventual ecclesiastical unity, based on reformed doctrine.

How could you possibly dismiss NAPARC when its very purpose is the unity you say is what the reformed church needs (and only an [unknown new content] confession can bring)?

NAPARC would seem to be part of the answer.

I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to see. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?

Two issues with this:
1) An assumption that a new confession will be so perfected that it will overcome limitations of all previous Confessions in the history of the church and therefore, will suddenly create unity
2) That having yet another reformed confession, with substantially less and/or different doctrine than those that have been tested for several hundred years will NOT further divide the reformed part of the church

No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).

One of the ways unity is shown is through the many churches that recite the Apostle's Creed.

As you are aware, there are some important differences in theology with the Lord's Supper. On top of that, the Word tells those who administer it and those who take it are to do so carefully.

But, the argument presented here laments the doctrinal differences.

How does the proffered new confession bring unity over this very important issue?

By ignoring it?

 

[P.F.]

Jason Stellman:

You wrote: "If the denominations represented by the members of this forum were to unite as a single church, I think that would be a God-glorifying thing. If a new confession could help facilitate that, then I think it’s a discussion worth having."

Why would it be glorifying to God? Is the PCUSA more glorifying to God than the PCA on account of its greater unity?

Why shouldn't the PCA relax its standards to permit reunification with the PCUSA?

If you can answer that last question, the rest should become clear to you.

 

[Notthemama1984]

There is a difference between relaxing standards to allow for liberality and uniting various denominations that differ on very few things.

 

[P.F.]

Boliver,

Please explain the difference to me.

Allow me to elaborate: almost every departure from the standards can be characterized as a "liberal" development by those who adhere to the standards.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here's a follow-up:

Creed Code Cult: On Saying Less More Loudly

Now, try as I might to make this point convincingly on the Puritan Board on Tuesday (and I did try), the vast majority of contributors just dismissed the idea with a chuckle and wave of the hand. So I’ll try again here, and then I’ll let the matter drop.

First off, I don't think anyone here dismissed your idea with a chuckle and the wave of a hand. That is just a another straw man you are presenting. We took you very seriously and I personnally was saddened by your thoughts. I think you are treading on seriously dangerous ground. I also fear where your thoughts will lead. If it weren't so I wouldn't have piped up. So far, I find your argumentation to be found lacking and dangerous for the Reformed Church. I don't think anyone was chuckling and just relinquishing you to the nonsensical. We took your ideas very seriously and considered it seriously in error.

From the blog...But as long as we theoretically subscribe to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms but allow countless exceptions to be taken to them, we leave ourselves no choice but to scratch our heads over whether things like refraining from recreation on the Sabbath and 6/24 creation are intrinsic to the system.

I think Reverend Winzer answered some of this already along with the 'let’s say less, but say it way louder for unity sake' remark.

I do believe the things you mention are intrinsic to the system as one point builds upon another. I believe the Divine's did also. If someone doesn't want to adhere they can move to the PCUSA and try to move her a little closer to the biblical standards. At least they won't be causing division amongst the Reformed.

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?

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.

from blog.... My proposal is simply that if we all agree that something is not intrinsic to the system, then why not omit it altogether?

This is just not going to happen. Dream on. Once you move that boundary of what was intrinsic to the Divines, because you Rev. Stellman don't think it is intrinsic, someone else is going to tell you the Regualtive Principle of Worship isn't intrinsic to the system. Then others are going to move to eliminate the section on the Scriptures because surely it might contain the Word of God but it isn't fully the Word of God because men's thoughts and emotions are definitely inbread into it. Now you are going to have to define what is intrinsic and what isn't to the system. You are losing your battle in my opinion. And you by your thinking are harming the Church and taking away something we are to mature into.