# A New Confession?



## Kaalvenist (Mar 2, 2006)

I'm afraid to ... but this is something I've thought about for a while, and thought I could get some good feedback on this forum.

The Three Forms of Unity were written in the mid-1500's and early 1600's. The Westminster Standards were written in the mid-1600's. We are separated from them by hundreds of years, thousands of miles, and numerous new controversies. The (true) Reformed and Presbyterian churches in this country are divided by the use of different doctrinal standards.

Is it possible that, for these and other reasons, the Reformed and Presbyterian churches in America (let's just say NAPARC) should draft a new confession, catechism, form of government, directory for worship, etc.? Mind you, I'm a hardcore Scots-Irish Presbyterian, member of the RPCNA, strict subscriptionist to the Westminster Standards, memorized the Shorter Catechism, more familiar with the Westminster Confession than with most parts of the Bible... but for the sake of unity with our Reformed brethren, is it possible that we ought to form a common doctrinal standard for the Reformed/Presbyterian churches in this country?

I realize also that this would not actually answer certain questions or resolve certain controversies that currently exist (fourth commandment, psalmody, views on creation, headcoverings, relation of faith to assurance, etc.); but it is also possible that simply the attempt to form a new doctrinal standard would bring controversies like that out in the open, so that they could be openly and charitably discussed. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but...

That's my


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> I realize also that this would not actually answer certain questions or resolve certain controversies that currently exist (fourth commandment, psalmody, views on creation, headcoverings, relation of faith to assurance, etc.); but it is also possible that simply the attempt to form a new doctrinal standard would bring controversies like that out in the open, so that they could be openly and charitably discussed. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but...
> That's my



I thought these were pretty much out in the open?


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 2, 2006)

when thinking about this topic i remember



> For these reasons, and other still more important reasons, I think it is clear that ours is not a creed-making age. Intellectual and moral indolence like ours do not constitute the soil out of which great Christian creeds may be expected to grow.


from: http://www.the-highway.com/creedsadv_Machen.html


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 2, 2006)

Some Reasons for Retaining the Westminster Confession as the Basis of Ecclesiastical Union  By Dr. James Willison.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Mar 2, 2006)

Regarding differences in doctrine between Reformed and Presbyterian camps Dr. Clark said this here:



> There are no fundamental differences theologically, confessionally. The folk who wrote the WCF knew Dort and were deeply influenced by the Heidelberg and the Belgic. They read continental Reformed theology.
> 
> On _close_ inspection, virtually all the alleged differences evaporate. Certainly the 16th and 17th century Reformed/Presbyterian folk were not conscious of the sorts of differences folk allege today.



Perhaps a combined confession rather than a new one would be more feasible. Has this ever been tried?


----------



## Casey (Mar 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka_
> Regarding differences in doctrine between Reformed and Presbyterian camps Dr. Clark said this here:
> 
> 
> ...


There are some churches that have adopted both the Three Forms and the Westminster Standards (the Reformed Church of New Zealand has done this), as well as some individual congregations joining the OPC from the CRC.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 2, 2006)

In my humble opinion, I don't think we need another Confession, but rather, a new Solemn League and Covenant. Updating that covenant for the Reformed Church today would be a really good thing. I think, maybe, some language in the confession could be updated (like "thither" and "theretofore") but the truths contained int he Confession need adherence, not change.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 2, 2006)

Sean, as Casey pointed to, I think an ideal solution to what you're talking about would simply be for our Presbyterian and Reformed churches to adopt both the Westminster Standards _and_ the Three Forms of Unity as their doctrinal standards. If the decision and the process of bringing it about were both done with careful and wise steps, it would eventually eliminate the breach to which you're referring, while not giving up the historic, tested solidity and reliability of the current standards.

Christopher, as to the notion of a _combined_ confession, while it would indeed have more of the tried and trusted historic element than a completely new one would, the process of deciding just how to combine them and what to put where would likewise introduce much of the same kind of novelty and possible confusion. Do you see the idea of combining them as preferable to that of simply using both sets of standards? Keepinb them distinct as documents would not prevent them from being equal and united in their roles - after all, even both groups now (Presbyterian and Reformed) have standards that consist of distinct documents.

This idea was also previously discussed here.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 2, 2006)

The only parts of the Confession that need reform or removal (that is, political stances that may have had a place in a pre-Industrial Revolution world but really don't make any sense and could not be applied in any sense in our world today as a result of so many Events that have occurred since then...) have already been reformed or removed by most American Presbyterian denominations. The rest is "ecumenical" enough within the sphere of Reformed orthodoxy to give enough breathing room to the various micro-sects within Reformed/Presbyterian churches, so that people can confess the Standards or the 3FU (or both together) and still remain both orthodox and "Reformed" in the classical sense of the word.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> In my humble opinion, I don't think we need another Confession, but rather, a new Solemn League and Covenant.





The RPCNA has sworn The Covenant of 1871. It's a good place to start.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Mar 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka_
> Perhaps a combined confession rather than a new one would be more feasible. Has this ever been tried?



I still wonder if it has been tried. But, of course



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Keeping them distinct as documents would not prevent them from being equal and united in their roles - after all, even both groups now (Presbyterian and Reformed) have standards that consist of distinct documents.



would be preferable (and more feasible!) 



> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> There are some churches that have adopted both the Three Forms and the Westminster Standards (the Reformed Church of New Zealand has done this), as well as some individual congregations joining the OPC from the CRC.



This is what my church has done.

On another note, I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that "new" confession means one that is written primarily from a fresh start as opposed to an updated or adapted one; although it may use older confessions as guides. I'm not exactly sure where the line would be drawn but I'll post this anyway: here is A Baptist Catechism that John Piper adapted. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparision between it and the WSC or HC.

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/what_we_believe/catechism.html


----------



## ReadBavinck (Mar 2, 2006)

And. . .I think adopting both sets of confessions is a great idea.:bigsmile:


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 2, 2006)

Jeff: Dr. Willson's article primarily addresses why the Westminster Confession of Faith should remain unaltered (especially regarding its doctrine of the civil magistrate); and does not address the question of organic union with Dutch Reformed churches. (Union with other churches seems to have historically been the farthest thing from the minds of Covenanters. I say this to my own shame.)

Matt: I already said I am a strict subscriptionist to the Westminster Standards. I believed in infant baptism, _jure divino_ presbyterianism, and unaccompanied exclusive psalmody when you were still a Reformed Baptist. I am suggesting, not that the truths of the Reformed faith be abandoned, but simply put into a single Reformed confession for all American Reformed churches.

Good points made by all (especially Gabe). I would, however, mention that:

(1.) Certain issues have come up within Reformed and Presbyterian circles which (I believe) require confessional statements, and not merely the decision of the PCA General Assembly. For example, the other Reformed and Presbyterian churches unanimously kicked the CRCNA out of NAPARC over the issue of the ordination of women to the offices of minister and elder. That is a point not explicitly stated in either the Three Forms or the Westminster Standards. Moreover, my denomination (RPCNA) has allowed woman deacons since the late 1800's. The question of ordination of women needs to be clarified in Reformed doctrinal standards.

(2.) My church does not follow the American revisions to the Westminster Confession, and also has the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony. We have an extra confessional statement to clarify our specific opinion on things _since_ Westminster.

(3.) I don't think that simply adopting the Westminster Standards together with the Three Forms would solve matters. Which catechism are children going to memorize? What about catechism preaching? Is assurance of the essence of faith? Admittedly, there aren't a whole lot of issues, but the issues that exist are significant enough to keep us in separate denominations.

And that's really my main issue. I long for the day when there is one Reformed church in the land. And that can't happen when the Presbyterians have their Westminster Standards, and the Dutch have their Three Forms, and that's just the way it is, and the way it always will be. If that's the problem, then we need *one* confession around which to rally.

To those of you advocating the Solemn League: Don't you remember that the swearing of the Solemn League led to the production of a new confession, two new catechisms, a new directory for worship, and a new form of church government, around which all the Reformed churches in the land were to rally? You're simply making my point even better than I could.

That is what I am now advocating. I love my Westminster Standards, and I will defend the doctrines they set forth with my last breath; but in John 17, Christ didn't pray for strict adherence to sixteenth and seventeenth century European doctrinal standards.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 3, 2006)

Sean,

I see what you are saying. I agree that official statements need to be clarified regarding contemporary issues, but I'm not sure if a new confession is the answer (although it may be).

Personally, I would like to see strict adhearance returned to the entire Westminster Standards (excepting a new SL&C revised for the states). I think that this in itself would (or at least should) solve the women's ordination issue (ref. Form of Presbyterian Church Government).

Regarding more contemporary issues such as FV, I believe these are already rejections of the Westminster Confession/Catechisms and do not NEED further statements from the PCA GA. I think that in reference to these, men need to make judgements based on the Standards, and stick to them.

As for joining with those who are "dutch" in their polity, I have mixed views on this. While there is so much to be agreed upon, there is still the matter of church governement and other issues that seem to me important enough to worship seperately (unless of course the dutch would like to become Presbyterian  ).

Sean, I would like to hear more of your reasons for issuing a new confession (and BTW I agree with some of your concerns).


----------



## yeutter (Mar 3, 2006)

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is an example of a modern creedal statement that clarified how we understand the nature and extent of Biblical authority.
Why should we not do the same thing with regard to justification?


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 4, 2006)

I could not agree more with the need to emphasize the authority of the Confession. I just finished a book by David Hall tiltled Windows on Westminster. You can get it through GCP (Great Commission Publications). I am so appreciative of the brilliant and holy men who sought so diligently to seek God's truth. I do not think that a new confession is needed, nor would it be valid at this point. We would be limited in the scope of depth in which it could go. Reformed people continue to disagree even on the Sabbath, and on eschatology . There is no way that we have matured enough in order to warrant a new confession.



> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> more familiar with the Westminster Confession than with most parts of the Bible...



I am concerned about this statement. I am not meaning to be critical. We should value the Confession as God's use of the ordinary means to lead the church into all truth, but it is never to take the place of Scripture in our minds or affections.

Just my


----------



## Robin (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> In my humble opinion, I don't think we need another Confession, but rather, a new Solemn League and Covenant. Updating that covenant for the Reformed Church today would be a really good thing. I think, maybe, some language in the confession could be updated (like "thither" and "theretofore") but the truths contained int he Confession need adherence, not change.



 You're the Doctor for a reason, Matt! 

Robin


----------



## jfschultz (Mar 5, 2006)

Perhaps the Southern Baptists would show one reason to tread carefully here. Consider the comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message and the readiness to make changes to meet modern desires (for example section VIII).


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 5, 2006)

How do you think it would "solve" such issues as "headcovering, psalmody, etc"? More than like it would force out one set of persons or another over something that is non-essential...thus losing good ppl on one side or the other. Because trust me, I know ppl that would hold exceptions on those issues one way or another. The issues are out in the open and regularly up for debate. I would hate to have to be forced out of my congregation because of what is on my head when I'm not pushing for anyone to be shoved out for what is not on theirs.

(Currently studying step by step the WCF and quite happy to keep it as it is for the most part).

[Edited on 3-6-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 6, 2006)

Sean,

I think the problem you are going to face in trying to create a "worldwide" reformed confession is going to be multifaceted.

1) Not everyone who says they are Reformed are Reformed. Will a new confession make this line disappear, or will it go back in time to hold to what "Reformed" Christians believed?

2) Will the new confession be "Reformed" or "reformed"? Little "r" = lose. "R" = traditionally reformed in the spirit of the Reformed Churches throughout Europe following the line of the SL&C.

3) Will the new confession dismiss ecclesiology (which would have to happen) in order to bring all "reformed" people into view. (Little "r").

4) Who will decide what "REFORMED" means?

5) The reason the SL&C was created was to follow (not create anew), again, to FOLLOW the "best Reformed Churches" in Europe already set in their "Reformed" (capital "R") theology. Do we frame a confession based on their take or Westminster's copy of their take on theology?

6) Based on your post, it seems that "reformed" Baptists would be excluded, as well as Independent "reformed". They don't adhere to the WCF, or 3FU.

7) In John 17 Jesus prayed that the Apostles, and those who follow them, adhere to the truth. You said that "I will defend the doctrines they set forth with my last breath". If the WCF or 3FU don't hold to the same teachings that Christ taught His apostles and prayed for their preservation in John 17, we should throw them out for what he actually _did_ teach them. I'm not disagreeing, I'm simply emphasizing that the WCF = Jesus prayer in a more systematic manner. If it did not, its not worth _solemnly covenanting_ over.

John 17:14 "I have given them Your word."

John 17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." 

8) I'm glad you were "Reformed" (big "R") before I was. That's one less I have to argue with now.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Mar 24, 2006)

Here is an interesting piece I found at Dr. Clark's webiste. 

It comes from Richard A. Muller's address, Confessing the Reformed Faith: Our Identity in Unity and Diversity, to the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council on November 9, 1993.

Here's a quote from the conclusion, regarding unity through the confessions (emphasis is mine):


> They were not (and, therefore, ought not to become) rules for belief imposed on the church from without: they are normative declarations spoken from within by the church itself, for the sake of pronouncing the church's biblical faith. We do justice to their contents only when we declare them"”only when we confess them"”as the expression of our corporate faith and corporate identity. *More confessions and varied patterns of subscription are not the solution to our problem.* Only the regular use of our confessions as standards for the expression of biblical truth can render them effective and, indeed, contemporary in their significance. Only by declaring the confessions, by using them in the contexts of preaching, of teaching, and of corporate worship, can they fulfill their intended role as positive guides, arising out of the faith of the church in its meditation on Scripture, to the ongoing work of the Reformed churches.
> 
> . . .*Our unity will appear clearly in the declaration of our faith through our distinctive confessions and through the reflection of our confessional heritage in our forms of worship.* Our Reformed identity depends on our willingness to declare our confessions and in so doing to confess the faith.


----------

