# Amend the Confessions?



## Christopher (May 13, 2004)

Vote according to your confession. If you are a Baptist I would expect you to think the wcf needs amending and vis versa.

[Edited on 5-14-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## sastark (May 13, 2004)

Is this a trick question? 

I don't think the WCF needs ammending, but at the same time I would not call it &quot;perfect&quot;. How 'bout a third option: &quot;Don't amend the confession. It is fine the way it is.&quot;


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 13, 2004)

Yeah, I think the wording of the poll could be a little misleading. Maybe don't use the word &quot;perfect,&quot; and also specify whether or not someone should consider baptism in voting.

Chris

[Edited on 5-13-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (May 13, 2004)

I think the confessions are fine the way they are and I'm against ammending them simply because of their historical value. 

What we SHOULD do instead is gather a reformed/calvinistic body of believers together and write [i:4c2a923c92]modern[/i:4c2a923c92] confessions. We've had some measure of success with things like [i:4c2a923c92]The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration[/i:4c2a923c92]. What we need to do (as a follow-up) is to urge churches and pastors who have signed on to this to adopt it as their doctrinal statement for their church and teach from/on it. The same could be done in Reformed circles today.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 13, 2004)

[quote:dee39f3a5a][i:dee39f3a5a]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:dee39f3a5a]
I think the confessions are fine the way they are and I'm against ammending them simply because of their historical value. 

What we SHOULD do instead is gather a reformed/calvinistic body of believers together and write [i:dee39f3a5a]modern[/i:dee39f3a5a] confessions. We've had some measure of success with things like [i:dee39f3a5a]The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration[/i:dee39f3a5a]. What we need to do (as a follow-up) is to urge churches and pastors who have signed on to this to adopt it as their doctrinal statement for their church and teach from/on it. The same could be done in Reformed circles today. [/quote:dee39f3a5a]

Kerry,
Why fix something thats not broken???


----------



## Christopher (May 13, 2004)

believe it or not the wcf and the 1689 will not be used in heaven. LOL
They are not perfect which means they are imperfect. The confessions are theology, and theology is man's interpretation of the Bible. It is an imperfect looking at the perfect. 
OS_X, I firmly believe that the confessions are great for their historical value. However, our faith is not meerly historical, to be sure it is, but it is also living and present. 

Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven. 

Maybe this is just ramble . . .


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 13, 2004)

[quote:3ad892bdaa][i:3ad892bdaa]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:3ad892bdaa]
believe it or not the wcf and the 1689 will not be used in heaven. LOL
They are not perfect which means they are imperfect. The confessions are theology, and theology is man's interpretation of the Bible. It is an imperfect looking at the perfect. 
OS_X, I firmly believe that the confessions are great for their historical value. However, our faith is not meerly historical, to be sure it is, but it is also living and present. 

Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven. 

Maybe this is just ramble . . . [/quote:3ad892bdaa]

Chris,
I want to respond to a few items:
&quot;believe it or not the wcf and the 1689 will not be used in heaven.&quot;

I don't believe anyone _elevated_ the confessions to that level. Our implication is that this is a sound document used to summarize what reformed people believe the scriptures to state. This is not a bad thing; not that you are implying that, but by your statement, it seems as if you think some people act in such a manner.


Otherwise, I ditto you b!


----------



## sastark (May 13, 2004)

[quote:40e0c8d533][i:40e0c8d533]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:40e0c8d533]
Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven. 

Maybe this is just ramble . . . [/quote:40e0c8d533]

Chris, I don't think the confessions should be amended for a couple of reasons: 

1) I don't trust present day theologians. Even many &quot;reformed&quot; theologians are questionable (I wouldn't want Steve Schlissel rewriting the WCF).

2) I can't think of any part of the WCF with which I disagree. Why modify it if I don't disagree with it? (&quot;If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it!&quot

3) What we need today is a return to the historical, reformed confessions - not a new and/or ammended confession.

A couple other things: I too strive for perfect theology. I just don't think I'll get it this side of heaven. Until then, I am very satisfied with the WCF, Heidelburg Catechism and the like.

Having said all that, I admit the WCF and other reformed confessions are man-made documents, and therefore not on the same level as Scripture and in fact, they can be changed/amended/rewritten - unlike Scripture.


----------



## Christopher (May 13, 2004)

Scott, as always you hit it on the head. It is when people elevate the confession to the level of Scripture that is the problem. These are people who will go around quoting the confession rather than the Bible. I am sure that those who penned these wonderful documents did not have that in mind for their work. 

Sastark,
Do you hold to every jot of those confessions?

Many folks do not hold to their writen confession 100% I suppose that is were the disciussion of loose and strict subscription comes in. 

Maybe what should be asked is how you would amend the confessions to fit your personal theology. Would would you take out stuff about the pope? or some other issue? What would you put in that you think is important enough to you that you can not believe that it was overlooked?

I love you guys. I missed throwing stuff out like this when my computer was dead.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 13, 2004)

I agree w/ the part about the pope; not that he's the only antiChrist, but one of them!

So, I say, leave it in.......the point is taken.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 13, 2004)

Every word that comes from thee mouth of God is our confession of Faith


----------



## Preach (May 13, 2004)

Christopher,
Do you think that we need any confession? I'm thinking what the implications of this discussion would be on ordination. What should be the standard(s) of who passes ordination and who does not?


----------



## A.J.A. (May 13, 2004)

sastark;

Actually, I don't think the confessions can be changed. Whenever anyone says &quot;London Baptist Confession&quot; or &quot;Westminster Confession&quot;, they mean the historical documents. There's no body with the recoginized authority to change them so any new version can't ever be &quot;official&quot; like the old ones are.

OTOH, there's no reason not to just say they're wrong about something, if that's what you think.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 14, 2004)

Chris did someone punch you in the face because you said the confessions wernt perfect


----------



## Christopher (May 14, 2004)

[quote:3324e089ac][i:3324e089ac]Originally posted by Preach[/i:3324e089ac]
Christopher,
Do you think that we need any confession? I'm thinking what the implications of this discussion would be on ordination. What should be the standard(s) of who passes ordination and who does not? [/quote:3324e089ac]

Do we need confessions? YES!!!! Creed have been around since the church has and longer. They have defined the true faith in opposition to the heritics. However, they have also been used to cause divisiveness in Christ's body where there should be none. 

Should our personal theology match our confession. Yes. there are some who hold to the mentioned confession that actually do not hold to every jot. there are some who say they agree with it all but atempt to change the intent of the confessions authors. 

As far as standards, well the Bible is the ultimate standard. But we are talking about does the candidate believe the same things about the Bible as the ordaining church. It is perfectly valid to have like minded members and leaders. However, I am firmly against doctrinal cloning. there should be room for disagreement on certain issues. What issues are those to fuss over? Well, they are too many for some and not enough for others. 

Our theology should be reforming throughout our lives. Some time we may come to a conviction of something learned from the Scriptures that contradicts the way that our confesion has seen it. In those cases the confession must be abandon in favor of the highest authority, the Bible. 

Maybe our churces shoud have broader confessions for membership. Ones that agree on essentials but leave it to the individual to fill in the details. 

I am becoming increasingly consernedthese days about the division in the church of God. We are often becoming so concerned about the peripherals (sp?) that we loose what binds us in common, the Cross of Jesus Christ. I think that the orthodox church is causing unneccisary division in His body by focusing on secondary issues. Shame on us. It s a disgrace to the Lord. 

Well, again I am rambling.


----------



## Christopher (May 14, 2004)

[quote:6107eb48aa][i:6107eb48aa]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:6107eb48aa]
Chris did someone punch you in the face because you said the confessions wernt perfect [/quote:6107eb48aa]

What are you talking about? all of us San Diego people look something like this, rigth Paul?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 14, 2004)

All you need is hook attached to your mouth and fishing line going up to OPEC holding the fishing pole.

blade


----------



## Saiph (May 14, 2004)

Confessions are historical documents.
Do not change them. That would be like changing the Mona Lisa.

If you do not like them write a new one.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 14, 2004)

[quote:c01a4ae8de][i:c01a4ae8de]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:c01a4ae8de]
[quote:c01a4ae8de][i:c01a4ae8de]Originally posted by Preach[/i:c01a4ae8de]
Christopher,
Do you think that we need any confession? I'm thinking what the implications of this discussion would be on ordination. What should be the standard(s) of who passes ordination and who does not? [/quote:c01a4ae8de]

Do we need confessions? YES!!!! Creed have been around since the church has and longer. They have defined the true faith in opposition to the heritics. However, they have also been used to cause divisiveness in Christ's body where there should be none. 

Should our personal theology match our confession. Yes. there are some who hold to the mentioned confession that actually do not hold to every jot. there are some who say they agree with it all but atempt to change the intent of the confessions authors. 

As far as standards, well the Bible is the ultimate standard. But we are talking about does the candidate believe the same things about the Bible as the ordaining church. It is perfectly valid to have like minded members and leaders. However, I am firmly against doctrinal cloning. there should be room for disagreement on certain issues. What issues are those to fuss over? Well, they are too many for some and not enough for others. 

Our theology should be reforming throughout our lives. Some time we may come to a conviction of something learned from the Scriptures that contradicts the way that our confesion has seen it. In those cases the confession must be abandon in favor of the highest authority, the Bible. 

Maybe our churces shoud have broader confessions for membership. Ones that agree on essentials but leave it to the individual to fill in the details. 

I am becoming increasingly consernedthese days about the division in the church of God. We are often becoming so concerned about the peripherals (sp?) that we loose what binds us in common, the Cross of Jesus Christ. I think that the orthodox church is causing unneccisary division in His body by focusing on secondary issues. Shame on us. It s a disgrace to the Lord. 

Well, again I am rambling. [/quote:c01a4ae8de]

Christopher,

Did you ever think that the division might not be the cause o the Confession for insisting on a doctrine (say the Sabbath), but on the individual for insisting that he not submit to the Church and have his own will paramount?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 14, 2004)

[quote:261f67921e][i:261f67921e]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:261f67921e]
Confessions are historical documents.
Do not change them. That would be like changing the Mona Lisa.

If you do not like them write a new one. [/quote:261f67921e]

We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten &quot;40 Days of Purpose&quot; are produced.

While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying &quot;Some people 2000 years ago believed&quot; but &quot;[b:261f67921e]I believe[/b:261f67921e]&quot; The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity.

Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible.


----------



## raderag (May 14, 2004)

[quote:e3bce9548e][i:e3bce9548e]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e3bce9548e]
We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten &quot;40 Days of Purpose&quot; are produced. 

While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying &quot;Some people 2000 years ago believed&quot; but &quot;I believe&quot; The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity. 

Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible. 
[/quote:e3bce9548e]

I think that is very well said. 

Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of an ecumenical movement that attempted to write creeds? I know of a couple (OS_X menitioned one). I also know there is one that holds to the 5 solas(reformed, Baptist, and Lutheran's).


----------



## twogunfighter (May 14, 2004)

Leave them like they are; if you cannot subscribe to the confessionof your church strictly then don't be an elder in that church.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 14, 2004)

[quote:c8fd3d6d64][i:c8fd3d6d64]Originally posted by raderag[/i:c8fd3d6d64]
[quote:c8fd3d6d64][i:c8fd3d6d64]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c8fd3d6d64]
We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten &quot;40 Days of Purpose&quot; are produced. 

While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying &quot;Some people 2000 years ago believed&quot; but &quot;I believe&quot; The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity. 

Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible. 
[/quote:c8fd3d6d64]

I think that is very well said.[/quote:c8fd3d6d64]

Amen. As I said in a recent similar thread, I don't think that, say, the WCF, actually needs to be amended. I believe it to be a sufficient (albeit imperfect by default) statement of the biblical truth for this life. However, as Fred excellently pointed out here, it is important that we recognize such documents as [i:c8fd3d6d64]amendable by nature[/i:c8fd3d6d64] even if we do not think we will ever see a need to amend them. As he said, they are not [i:c8fd3d6d64]solely[/i:c8fd3d6d64] historical documents, but expressions of our living faith today. It is recognizing them as amendable by nature, and saying that we would be willing to amend them if a specific error ever could be pointed out in one of them, that allows us to adhere to both confessionalism and Sola Scriptura, and sets us apart from Rome on the issue.

[quote:c8fd3d6d64][i:c8fd3d6d64]Originally posted by raderag[/i:c8fd3d6d64]
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of an ecumenical movement that attempted to write creeds? I know of a couple (OS_X menitioned one). I also know there is one that holds to the 5 solas(reformed, Baptist, and Lutheran's). [/quote:c8fd3d6d64]

This seems like another discussion altogether to me. The issue of confessionalism within Reformed Christendom and the issue of ecumenical confessions and how far they can beneficially be taken are two totally different issues. If you want to discuss the issue you mentioned of modern ecumenical creeds, maybe start a thread for that.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## BlackCalvinist (May 15, 2004)

Not an 'ecumenical' movement where, for example, you have Norm Geisler AND R.C. Sproul AND Bill Craig AND Greg Boyd fleshing out something. Craig, Geisler and Sproul would be bashing Boyd (open theism), Boyd, Geisler and Craig bashing Sproul (predestination), Geisler and Craig bashing Boyd, Boyd and Craig playing pattycake with Geisler, Sproul shaking his head in disgust and the list goes on. 

 

I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed.


----------



## JohnV (May 15, 2004)

[quote:ce09fd9778][i:ce09fd9778]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:ce09fd9778]
Not an 'ecumenical' movement where, for example, you have Norm Geisler AND R.C. Sproul AND Bill Craig AND Greg Boyd fleshing out something. Craig, Geisler and Sproul would be bashing Boyd (open theism), Boyd, Geisler and Craig bashing Sproul (predestination), Geisler and Craig bashing Boyd, Boyd and Craig playing pattycake with Geisler, Sproul shaking his head in disgust and the list goes on. 

 

I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed. [/quote:ce09fd9778]


Kerry and Christopher and all:
I have a few things to say about this subject, but Idon't have the time today. I feel compelled to say this because in the last few weeks I have had little opportunity to put in my two cents, and a number of discussions fizzled before I had a chance to reach in my pocket and find two pennies. 

What I do want to say is that this discussion is very important in my view. It pertains to how we view and/or respect the confessions, and what we inadvertantly do when we speak of our own faith as not subject to them even in part, as if we can pick and choose from them. 

I was a member of a church once where such a thing as a certain and sure Biblical teaching was assumed only on things that were not in question. But as soon as any teaching became in question, the Biblical certainty of it was no longer assumed. Some viewed it this way, some that way; and both parties had to be assumed to be faithfully sincere. But this denies the perspcuity of Scripture, subjecting it to the vicissitudes of men's beliefs. The truth of the confessions, yes and even of Scripture itself, depended not the clarity of the truth, but on men's varying understandings. It was as if one thing was true for one, and another thing was true for another. 

The reason we have confessions at all is to put a circle around those things which are universally expected to be believed of those who are of the household of faith. Yes, there are some notable differences from one confession to another, and they are not easily resolved. But neither do they wrongly divide the household of faith; as Baptist are free to believe as they sincerely will, and Presbyterians to believe as they sincerely will. Within each group, the faithful are not to be too free to raise themselves above the Confessions, even if they have good and sufficient reasons for calling certain nuances or meanings into question. For it is the teachings in the Confession that are accepted and sought after, not his particular persuasion. 

The Confessions state faithfully and clearly, within a limited scope, the teachings of Scripture. It is the teachings, teh expressions of sound Biblical reasoning, not the documents themselves, which we hold in high regard, so that there is no dichotomous standard in the churches.

That's all I have time for, for now. It is the way I feel about this very timely topic. It's what I would like to add to the good posts so far.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2004)

[quote:d4a758aadf][i:d4a758aadf]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:d4a758aadf]
Not an 'ecumenical' movement where, for example, you have Norm Geisler AND R.C. Sproul AND Bill Craig AND Greg Boyd fleshing out something. Craig, Geisler and Sproul would be bashing Boyd (open theism), Boyd, Geisler and Craig bashing Sproul (predestination), Geisler and Craig bashing Boyd, Boyd and Craig playing pattycake with Geisler, Sproul shaking his head in disgust and the list goes on. 

 

I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed. [/quote:d4a758aadf]

Kerry,

You already have this in the ecumenical creeds plus stuff like the Chicago Statement on Inerrency. What you describe would never work, because a Confession is what binds a church together, and there are too many differences.

The result would be a watered down, near-useless document that could not touch on the sacraments (disagreements abound there!), Scripture (Grudem's continuing prophecy preventing that), worship, or even the authority of the confession itself (Frame wouldn't have that!)

So you end up with a statement on basic Scriptural principles, the decrees, the Person and Work of Christ - basically the ecumenical creeds and inerrency statements. In the end no reformed man could sign on, since such a &quot;creed&quot; would view the sacraments as unimportant, when they are vital to the life of the church, and the most important function of the church, worship, would be ignored too. Better to stay with our creeds and work on ecumenical involvement (within parameters).


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 15, 2004)

From the way things look Christ is coming back soon enough pray and read the word and spread it.

blade


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 15, 2004)

[quote:7f5e4285a7][i:7f5e4285a7]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:7f5e4285a7]
From the way things look Christ is coming back soon enough pray and read the word and spread it.

blade [/quote:7f5e4285a7]

That depends on one's eschatology .

[Edited on 5-15-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 15, 2004)

which hence depends on the bible

and hence depends on God


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 15, 2004)

And God depends on...oh, sorry, still recovering from my Arminian upbringing .


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 15, 2004)




----------



## FrozenChosen (May 15, 2004)

[quote:9221cc350a][i:9221cc350a]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:9221cc350a]
And God depends on...oh, sorry, still recovering from my Arminian upbringing . [/quote:9221cc350a]

+2 points for hilarity.


----------



## JohnV (May 16, 2004)

Here is my rant on this subject:

In my circle of Reformed churches, which are mostly from Dutch origin, there has been a great deal of lattitudinarianism. Especially in the churches where I was member has there been a practice of recognizing as faithful those who were members in good standing. This &quot;good standing&quot; was defined by being members. This may seem inoccuous enough, but this developed from an equality of membership to an equality of faith to an equality of the content of faith. I remember being told one time, &quot;What does it matter, as long as we all have Jesus as our Saviour?&quot; Eventually this leads to having the offices filled with men who not only differ among themselves as to doctrine, but also are free to differ with the Confessions as they will. There is no one to say that their faith is not equal to, or sufficient for, any other ordained officer. 

So we have disputes, not only in local churches, but in denominations. One side wants to open the offices to women, and the other not. But there is no one to officially say that the one side or the other is being unfaithful in doctrine, for they are both equal. It may not be full-blown, but faithfulness has in part become equal to unfaithfulness, and there is a despairing of resolution from out of the teachings of Scripture, as summarized in the Confesssions.

We tend too easily to define Covenant faithfulness as sufficient maturity for the offices. And we too easily lower the standards of Covenant faithfulness so as not to exclude those who are less mature. So there is a watering down of the teachings of the Confessions as requirements for office. 

But salvation is by grace, not by standards. Salvation will lead to conformity, but it is not automatically there upon the instituting of saving grace. Sanctification follows salvation. Understanding and wisdom grow in a person, and are not automatically assumed upon salvation. A person increases in his knowledge of the Word and of God his Saviour as he continues to submit to the authority of the Word and of the Spirit's leading. He has many hills yet to climb. But he is nonetheless already saved no less than the most mature Christian.

But this is not the requirement that the Bible states for the qualification for the offices. The leadership of the church is not up to man. It is in man's hands to take up responsibilities of the offices, but it is in no way up to him how he may lead, or what direction the church may take. It is Christ's church, and He alone is the head. 

Therefore the Church institutes standards for doctrine. These standards need to be attained to, not made artificial. Though we may fail in attaining to a true and complete doctrine of salvation, yet we confess the church to hold them within the standards she upholds. If she fails to uphold that standard she confessess, then she also fails in upholding a true and complete doctrine of salvation. 

Notice that the novice or new convert is not required to be fully knowledgable of the Confessions, but only to accept them. This is far different than a prospective elder. He may not be able to attain to a full knowledge either, but there has to be a standard much higher than a novice. He must be mature enough, at least, to know that he may not put forth his own beliefs as standards of faith for others, no matter how mature he may be. He is called to lead as best he can as an elder, according to Christ's will, not his own. There has to be, then, a fuller knowledge of the Bible's teachings of salvation, a knowledge both of the historical church's rulings, and knowledge of contemporary influences. He must, in fact, be able to reason adequately from Scripture to defend the faith of those over who he has been given responsibility. 

If an elder raises himself above the Confessions, then he stands alone, and not in unity with the church. If he is right in his assertions, then it will eventually stand, not because he asserted it, but because of the weight of truth itself. Meanwhile, he does no harm either to himself or to the church by patiently waiting for the Spirit to so lead the church.

This is far different than an elder, or even an ordinary member, standing alone against the local church or denomination. He may do so if he clearly has the Confessions on his side. In this way he is united with the church while he may be at odds with his own church or denomination. But here too, he must patiently wait for the Spirit to lead as He will. 

When the church remains adamant in its apostacy or heresy, then there is a time for patience to run out. When exactly that is, I suppose, is up to each individual situation. But a person is not to think himself alienated from the Body of Christ if he remains faithful to the Confessions, even though his local church may rule otherwise. He may not subject these standards to his own particular slant to justify himself; he must be clearly in line with faithful teachings.

The question, though, is about churches that are faithful to the Standards, and yet there being some kind of percieved fault in the Standards themselves. It has been noted that there have been no ecumenical councils like that of the Westminster Assembly or the Synod of Dordt to resolve present or contemporary controversies. In the same way it has also been suggested that the present controversies can be resolved within the confines of the Confessional standards we already have; that we don't need another Synod to do again what a previous Synod has already done. 

I think that we have divided over too many small things, or made too many big things appear to be only small, and yet divided. There are too many equated understandings of the Confessions. This does not need to be so. Nor do we need to convene another Assembly to resolve them. I think that we need to raise the level of maturity for the offices, and lower the level of maturity for membership. We need men who accept the Standards of Faith as their standards to lead us according to the will of the true leader and head of the Church, namely Christ; and we ought not to judge too harshly those who differ with us in matters of the Confessions, so as to think that they are not of the body of Christ. We can have unity of fellowship, and a better leadership. 

After many years of disappointing church affiliations, and of trying to apply these Reformed doctrines to myself, this is where I come out. I love my brethren; but I have a lot of problems with belligerant laxness, of putting the lines in arbitrary places instead of where the Bible puts them. I may be guilty of this myself; but that is why I have friends like you.


----------



## JohnV (May 16, 2004)

Before I get a lot of questions about lowering the standard, I should clarify. I'm just saying that we should not exclude from the faith those who have a mere beginning of understanding, but who will submit to the Word when the Word directs them in ways that they have not yet acknowledged. 

At the same time, we should be much more careful about who we ordain to the offices. Some office-bearers will excuse themselves from subjection by equivocating, making unsure the sure teachings of Scripture, as outlined in the Confessions. Just because they may have a disagreement, that does not excuse them. They are still to be counted as faithful Christians, but as office-bearers they have to uphold the church's standards or be counted as unfaithful in the administration of the office.

I'm not trying to suggest that we can accept anyone and everyone who says they are believers, just on their sayso. I just want to avoid situations like what I have found myself in, where &quot;good standing&quot; meant submission to Reconsructionism, or fitting in culturally as well.


----------

