# confessionalism: how much is too much?



## rembrandt (May 13, 2004)

It is definitely possible that a church can be too 'confessional.' For instance, forcing people to believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago rather than a little longer. 

Certainly we should fight over baptism and major stuff like that. But how about other issues pertaining to covenant theology, interpretation of certain passages (that may not throw off a theological system), infra/supra etc.?

How do we determine what the essentials are which bind upon all the members of the church?

Rembrandt


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 13, 2004)

In addition to the error of being too specific and detailed, another way to become too &quot;confessional&quot; is what Rome has set a perfect example of doing--making the confession's every aspect an eternally-binding, even non-amendable document. When it reaches the point where it cannot be regularly tested and in turn amended when found to go beyond what the Bible requires, at that point I would say confessionalism had been given too large a place.

As to how detailed confessions should get, to me it seems that that very issue itself is one that can create much debate and divergent opinions. At a bare minimum, I would say that a good Reformed confession should have the &quot;essentials&quot; as stated in the ecumenical creeds, the five Solas of the Reformation, the doctrines of God's complete sovereignty in salvation and the rest of life, the doctrine of Christ's atoning work, &quot;basic&quot; Covenant Theology (i.e. at least a clear denial of Dispensationalism, including eschatology), the doctrine of cessationism, and a doctrine of the church (which may or may not include an affirmation or denial of paedobaptism).

As to the question of whether or not to include more detailed, minor, and perhaps even controversial (within the community creating the confession) doctrines, I would venture to say that their importance should be recognized, dwelt upon and discussed, but that they should not be brought into the confessions until they can almost undisputedly be shown to be biblical.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Christopher (May 13, 2004)

Chris, now there is a word that might make confessioanlists shiver, &quot;amendment.&quot; 
We should never get so hung up on a confession so as to think that it is perfect. there is only one document of the Faith that I know of to be perfect: the Bible. The major confessions cover a lot of doctrines. We would be fools to thinkt that they do not contain errors. 
With this said, the confessions serve as good guides (but we must remember to weigh it all by the Bible).


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 13, 2004)

Agreed and amen. We can definitely have a &quot;high&quot; view and doctrine of the Church and confessionalism without thinking them perfect.


----------



## rembrandt (May 13, 2004)

Should the church split because of issues of eschatology?

What about other things that we &quot;think&quot; are clear? Such as baptism... both sides believe they have clear biblical proof. For one to say, the church is not in unanimous agreement on this and therefore should not frame one particular side in a confession, could lead downhill if one were to take this to it's logical conclusion. For instance, the Arminians think they have clear biblical proof for their position. Just because the 'church' is not in agreement on the 'doctrines of grace,' should we then not frame it in a 'confession?' 

Even if things are not agreed upon, must we still frame it in our 'confession' if we see it as important doctrine for the life of the church?

Who is the ultimate determiner of truth? The church. I find church dogma rather inconsistent but highly necessary (even if it causes factions). 

The problem comes of course when we end up with a bunch of churches... who are in disagreement. What shall we do? Force them to obey us, since we are the church? That is biblical right... I mean, for necessary doctrine?

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 13, 2004)

[quote:dd82d58268]Force them to obey us, since we are the church? That is biblical right... I mean, for necessary doctrine?[/quote:dd82d58268]

Of course there is a level of wisdom in this... we should not kill off the credobaptists when they are on our side on everything else...

But we should still dogmatize against them, right?


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 13, 2004)

[quote:202cda7404][i:202cda7404]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:202cda7404]
Chris, now there is a word that might make confessioanlists shiver, &quot;amendment.&quot; 
We should never get so hung up on a confession so as to think that it is perfect. there is only one document of the Faith that I know of to be perfect: the Bible. The major confessions cover a lot of doctrines. We would be fools to thinkt that they do not contain errors. 
With this said, the confessions serve as good guides (but we must remember to weigh it all by the Bible). [/quote:202cda7404]

And Chris writes:
&quot;Agreed and amen. We can definitely have a &quot;high&quot; view and doctrine of the Church and confessionalism without thinking them perfect. &quot;


They are not perfect gentlemen, but they are sufficient and in my opinion need no amending.


----------



## Learner (May 13, 2004)

Paul,you said that the church is the &quot;ultimate determiner
of the truth&quot;.Isn't the Bible the final arbiter?


----------



## rembrandt (May 13, 2004)

[quote:c471696beb][i:c471696beb]Originally posted by Learner[/i:c471696beb]
Paul,you said that the church is the &quot;ultimate determiner
of the truth&quot;.Isn't the Bible the final arbiter? [/quote:c471696beb]

Oh yes, my bad. What I meant was, &quot;who determines the truth [b:c471696beb][of the Bible][/b:c471696beb].&quot; I was thinking of that verse that says that 'the church is the gound and pillar of truth.' We uphold the truth, therefore we could be said to determine what the truth is in some way. We point to the Bible and say that it is truth. But we also dogmatize from the Bible and make our conclusions from it that must be followed. i.e.: In preaching and dogmatics, we start out with the presupposition that we are correct in what we believe. Which gives the right to make authoritative confessions that bind on people.

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

Does anybody else find 'Church Dogma' inconsistant (though it may just [i:030d224ae9]seem[/i:030d224ae9] that way)? I mean, it seems rather 'circular.' I am not saying that 'circular' is inconsistant, only that it doesn't make full sense. 

Rembrandt


----------



## BobVigneault (May 14, 2004)

Scripture is self-validating. That is a circular argument. I'm fine with that. In presuppositionalism, the thinking is circular and in that everyone, regenerate &amp; unregenerate, begins with an unprovable axiom, all thinking is circular.


----------



## Preach (May 14, 2004)

Bob,
What type of presuppositionalism are you referring to?
(ex. Clarkian, Van Til, etc). They are not all the same.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 14, 2004)

[quote:a184b51c3c][i:a184b51c3c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:a184b51c3c]
[quote:a184b51c3c][i:a184b51c3c]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:a184b51c3c]
Chris, now there is a word that might make confessioanlists shiver, &quot;amendment.&quot; 
We should never get so hung up on a confession so as to think that it is perfect. there is only one document of the Faith that I know of to be perfect: the Bible. The major confessions cover a lot of doctrines. We would be fools to thinkt that they do not contain errors. 
With this said, the confessions serve as good guides (but we must remember to weigh it all by the Bible). [/quote:a184b51c3c]

And Chris writes:
&quot;Agreed and amen. We can definitely have a &quot;high&quot; view and doctrine of the Church and confessionalism without thinking them perfect. &quot;


They are not perfect gentlemen, but they are sufficient and in my opinion need no amending. [/quote:a184b51c3c]

I agree, Scott, that they are sufficient and don't actually need to be amended. However, I think that what is important is the [i:a184b51c3c]principle[/i:a184b51c3c] that they are [i:a184b51c3c]amendable[/i:a184b51c3c], even if we never actually end up seeing a need to amend them. We must be [i:a184b51c3c]ideologically willing[/i:a184b51c3c] to amend them if a need for such were ever to be shown (hypothetically assuming that it could). That is what allows us to adhere to confessionalism and Sola Scriptura at the same time, and what sets us apart from Rome on the issue. If we were to make a hard and fast statement that we [i:a184b51c3c]must never[/i:a184b51c3c] amend our confessions, then I think we would have a problem.

In Christ,

Chris


----------

