# Exceptions to the Confessions



## A5pointer (Sep 27, 2007)

As I looked over the thread on the confessional view of the Pope/anti-Christ this question came to mind. Their such a bristle from some when a point in a confession is questioned or rejected. The defense goes something like this "off course the confession is not scripture but....................therefore it must be held to as a whole." How would you comment on this in light of everone so easily dismissing the divines on this subject of the anti-Christ? Play nice, I am scared of some of you guys.


----------



## ADKing (Sep 27, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> As I looked over the thread on the confessional view of the Pope/anti-Christ this question came to mind. Their such a bristle from some when a point in a confession is questioned or rejected. The defense goes something like this "off course the confession is not scripture but....................therefore it must be held to as a whole." How would you comment on this in light of everone so easily dismissing the divines on this subject of the anti-Christ? Play nice, I am scared of some of you guys.



I would say that strict/full subscription isn't practiced by many churches. Full subscription churches _do_ hold that point of the confession. Not _everyone_ so easily dismisses it. It is held in the WPCUS for instance. (Nice enough? )


----------



## elnwood (Sep 27, 2007)

I think the Confessions need to be amended if they are to be used as a statement of what a church believes. Many Reformed Baptist churches have amendments to the LBC. The American revision of the WCF removed and modified things substantially. The Bible Presbyterian Church has amended their WCF to allow historic premillennialism. Since Puritan Sabbatarianism is not held in much of the PCA, I think they should amend the language similarly to the language in the Three Forms of Unity to allow both views.

I think there are many issues that ought to be addressed by Confessions because the state of the church is different now. There are issues that were not in dispute when the Confessions were written but ought to be clarified now that they are called into question. There are issues that deserve more attention.

For example: The Southern Baptist Faith and Message has articles on Evangelism and Missions, Peace and War, and the Family, as well as others I would consider not adequately covered in the Confessions. I think it is good and right to add to the Confessions and say, yes, we ought to preach the gospel to the lost and go out to all nations, yes, Christians should seek peace, and yes, there is a distinctly biblical structure to the family. All these are plainly biblical teachings that ought to be confessed.

In addition, Federal Vision will claim to be completely confessional, and I've known non-FVs who have told me that the Confessions have not adequately safeguarded against FV. By all means, amend the Confessions and make justification clear. By all means, amend the confession to make it clear that women are not to be ordained.

I think many Reformed people get so hung up over their doctrinal tradition and how old it is that they would rather keep the Confession the way it is for historical unity. I say, keep the Confessions up to date and relevant, and allow no quibbles and exceptions of doctrine.


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I think the Confessions need to be amended if they are to be used as a statement of what a church believes. Many Reformed Baptist churches have amendments to the LBC. The American revision of the WCF removed and modified things substantially. The Bible Presbyterian Church has amended their WCF to allow historic premillennialism. Since Puritan Sabbatarianism is not held in much of the PCA, I think they should amend the language similarly to the language in the Three Forms of Unity to allow both views.
> 
> I think there are many issues that ought to be addressed by Confessions because the state of the church is different now. There are issues that were not in dispute when the Confessions were written but ought to be clarified now that they are called into question. There are issues that deserve more attention.
> 
> ...



I think that's what churches and association and denominations do except they don't always put it down on paper. For example, there are things that my fellow elder at my church agree on that are not specifically set down in the church's statement of faith, but nevertheless, since we are in agreement, it is a part of our joint confession. I think every Christian plurality has some kind of written or unwritten confession. I know that my wife and I have a confession. We have never written it down but we know on what things we are united and what things we are not. We know not to make binding things that the other does not agree with.

I agree that the confessions should be amended to reflect the unity of the particular fellowship in question. Discussions about what we agree on is at the core of our Christianity. 

2 Cor 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, *be of one mind, live in peace*; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 27, 2007)

I Agree to an extent..... Confessions are good but they can also err as both the wcf and the lbc state... They should be added to and at time amended for error but it must never be down flippantly or hastily... We must never be arrogant to assume we have discovered the truth that our past forefathers did not discover after 2000 years. It must also never be done by one person or one church, but in the multitude there is wise counsel and safety.

I doubt though, that today in our age of antitraditionalism and antidoctrinalism we have the prowess to improve or add to what the gaints of the faith did in the 17th century... We lack the education of the Word that they had within them back then. 

Just my 
Michael




elnwood said:


> I think the Confessions need to be amended if they are to be used as a statement of what a church believes. Many Reformed Baptist churches have amendments to the LBC. The American revision of the WCF removed and modified things substantially. The Bible Presbyterian Church has amended their WCF to allow historic premillennialism. Since Puritan Sabbatarianism is not held in much of the PCA, I think they should amend the language similarly to the language in the Three Forms of Unity to allow both views.
> 
> I think there are many issues that ought to be addressed by Confessions because the state of the church is different now. There are issues that were not in dispute when the Confessions were written but ought to be clarified now that they are called into question. There are issues that deserve more attention.
> 
> ...


----------



## elnwood (Sep 27, 2007)

thunaer said:


> I Agree to an extent..... Confessions are good but they can also err as both the wcf and the lbc state... They should be added to and at time amended for error but it must never be down flippantly or hastily... We must never be arrogant to assume we have discovered the truth that our past forefathers did not discover after 2000 years. It must also never be done by one person or one church, but in the multitude there is wise counsel and safety.
> 
> I doubt though, that today in our age of antitraditionalism and antidoctrinalism we have the prowess to improve or add to what the gaints of the faith did in the 17th century... We lack the education of the Word that they had within them back then.



Oh, I disagree. Some of the doctrines formulated during the Reformation were pretty much brand-spanking new over and against Roman Catholicism. Presbyterian government. Non-salvific, covenantal infant baptism. The Regulative Principle. They were breaking new ground.

The WCF was published only about 120 years after the 95 theses. I don't doubt that the Reformers knew their bibles well, but we have had so much more time to reflect and study. Our knowledge of the original languages is much better than what they knew. Our knowledge of the literature and culture in which the bible was written is much better than what they knew. The Protestant church has since spread all over the world, and we've benefited from over four centuries of scholarship worldwide since the Confessions were written.

The Reformers definitely had their basic theology down, and the Confessions are magnificent documents historically and doctrinally. But we are much, much better educated now about the Bible than they were then, especially since we have been building on their foundation.


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > I Agree to an extent..... Confessions are good but they can also err as both the wcf and the lbc state... They should be added to and at time amended for error but it must never be down flippantly or hastily... We must never be arrogant to assume we have discovered the truth that our past forefathers did not discover after 2000 years. It must also never be done by one person or one church, but in the multitude there is wise counsel and safety.
> ...



But are we given that same measure of grace as those men who came out of the fire of persecution? I wonder if I trust modern scholarship because it often seems to be *only* scholarship. What is the fruit of modern scholarship? Whenever there is a question, who do we turn to? Karl Barth? NT Wright? Dwight Pentacost? 

I've got nothing against scholarship, of course, but the Reformers seemed to have something more than mere scholarship.


----------



## MW (Sep 27, 2007)

KMK said:


> I've got nothing against scholarship, of course, but the Reformers seemed to have something more than mere scholarship.



 They had a united testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus. If we accept Don's concessions we will be tossed to and fro by the electric impulses of brilliant but individualistic men. It is better to be led in the footsteps of the flock. It simply isn't true that these things were new. Read the literature of the period and one will see that the reformers found testimony to these things in the fathers and doctors of the church. Is the branch of a tree new? Relatively, yes; but because it grows out of the tree, it may be said to have existed all along in the tree's organic structure.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I've got nothing against scholarship, of course, but the Reformers seemed to have something more than mere scholarship.
> ...



 Thanks for that. More often these days, I see the fruit that theological "brilliance" leads to. I'm not against scholarship but I find it an arrogance of modernism to believe that our knowledge is continually evolving. Theological speculation in academia pales in comparison to staid testimony within the Church to the Gospel of Christ and the equipping of Saints toward that end. What differentiates a brilliant man like Durham from some of the brilliant men today is that he writes with a Pastor's heart. Theology is not a mere discipline whereby we seek to constantly uncover new ideas but it is primarily an accurate re-telling of the same story to each new generation. I wonder if each succeeding generation after crossing the Jordan tried to come with ever more interesting ways to explain what those 12 stones meant in the river....


----------



## elnwood (Sep 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I've got nothing against scholarship, of course, but the Reformers seemed to have something more than mere scholarship.
> ...



I think you're misunderstanding what I mean. I am by no means endorsing liberal scholarship. What I am saying is that, while Calvin's Institutes is a fine Systematic, but if that was good enough, there would have been no reason for Louis Berkhof, or Robert Reymond, etc. etc.

Also, it's not as if there aren't Reformed Churches with a united testimony today.

As previously noted, the Confessions addressed particular errors in their own time, such as the Anabaptists and the Arminians. While still relevant today, I don't see any reason that the church today cannot do the same also and address contemporary concerns.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

I don't agree Don. I used to think that the Confessions too narrowly define doctrine and that more ought to be specified but I think the desire to specify more is imprudent. It's no mystery that the legalism of a religion necessitates that more be spelled out. Have you ever picked up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Creedal formulations have never been about trying to answer all the questions but primarily to unite around essentials and keeping the heretics out. 

I think the Southern Baptist Faith and Message reads in many parts just like an American would formulate a bunch of non-essentials. It doesn't transport itself well beyond the boundaries of the United States. The WCF, 3FU, or LBCF by contrast is largely trans-cultural.

I remember Scalia lecturing to us at Command and Staff College a few years ago. He had been asked to review and comment on the Constitution for the EU (before it fell through in the countries around Europe). The document was hundreds of pages long. In contrast, our Constitution is a paltry several pages long and, theoretically, could still guide the country by its cornerstone principles. In the end, if everything is a cornerstone principle then nothing is.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> More often these days, I see the fruit that theological "brilliance" leads to. I'm not against scholarship but I find it an arrogance of modernism to believe that our knowledge is continually evolving.



Like all issues we have to watch the extremes. So much "new" scholarship is just a rehashing of old issues. But at the same time we can't deny that there have been all sorts of progressions (linguistic, theological, etc.) since the 17th century. This is a potential issue for us who believe in confessional Christianity. 

Luther's doctrine of the alien imputed righteousness was, it appears, quite new, and he was aware of this. He knew it had similarities with Augustine (it was a gift) but there was much about it that couldn't be found in earlier theology (faith alone, alien righteousness, imputation etc.). Hence, we can't exclude the "newness" of something from the outset. For example, what do we do with the breakthrough in eschatology in the 20th century and its concomitant understanding of the kingdom of God? Although there were minor antecedents in 16th and 17th century theology they don't do justice to the modern presentation.

The second problem that often dogs us who are confessional is that the confessions often take a position over which Christians are free to disagree. Hence, a confession might unnecessarily divide believers where they shouldn't. One of the programs for reformed Christianity is to think seriously about the importance of various doctrines, and work out where we can and can't disagree.

For example, John Owen believes the debate between whether assurance is integral to faith, or the fruit of faith, is a point that reformed believers are free to disagree on. He says this:

And if we cannot, on this consideration, bear with, and forbear, one another in our different conceptions and expressions of those conceptions about these things [concerning the object of justifying faith], it is a sign we have a great mind to be contentious, and that our confidences are built on very weak foundations. For my part, I had much rather my lot should be found among them who do really believe with the heart unto righteousness, though they are not able to give a tolerable definition of faith unto others, than among them who can endlessly dispute about it with seeming accuracy and skill, but are negligent in the exercise of it as their own duty (Justification “General Considerations”, Works 5:63).

Very wise words indeed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > More often these days, I see the fruit that theological "brilliance" leads to. I'm not against scholarship but I find it an arrogance of modernism to believe that our knowledge is continually evolving.
> ...



As I stated, I'm not against scholarship and its aids. 

There is a sense, however, among some academia that you're not really doing theology unless you're doing something "cutting edge". There's a restlessness among some that gets tired of hearing the same story of the Cross year in and year out, century in and century out. Surely there's something we haven't discovered. Ah! Second Temple Judaism is how Paul should be understood!

Some view these as advancements in theology. I view them as fancies of an imagination that is dissatisfied with the Word of God.

I think Frame makes a great point about Modernism. Historically councils would meet to discuss the direction of theology and to make course corrections. Then the Enlightment came and men just started asserting that the Scriptures were unreliable. No Church council ever decided it but academic notions, divorced from Church councils, has slowly supplanted the role of Church councils. I'm not necessarily a TR-only kind of guy but I am sympathetic to those that note that we moderns value the opinions of "scholars" outside the Church to tell us what is/isn't (by "scientific" observation) the Word of God in lieu of the institution that Christ established.

That attitude prevails even among us. The reason we're all so easily convinced that we have the right to assert that the Confessions and Creeds are all dorked up is because we've been raised with this autonomous mindset with respect to truth. We may confess that controversies of the faith are settled by the Church but we hardly live that way because we don't really believe it. Controversies of the faith, for the modern man, are settled in _my_ mind.


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 28, 2007)

> I think many Reformed people get so hung up over their doctrinal tradition and how old it is that they would rather keep the Confession the way it is for historical unity. I say, keep the Confessions _up to date and relevant_, and allow no quibbles and exceptions of doctrine.



But what is the motivation for change? Is it the evolution of culture that creates a new context or are we saying that they were wrong in the first place? If it is the former, we should then ask what effect culture should have upon scripture and its interpretation. We may then argue over the 'fact' that the Reformers were influenced by cultural instances in thier own time (pointedly dealing with RCatholic basptism, heresies of the Anabaptists, etc.) but these were invasions within the theater of the church, not the theater of secular culture.

It reminded me of Richard's thread on drama recently - he had a link to a CRC paper that discussed a decision in 1928 to deign theater attendance as sinful and CRC members should not attend. This was reversed in 1966 because no one was following it anyway. (!!!!) I am not saying that this church paper was in the same league as the confessions, but my point is that culture should not have this sort of influence on church policy and doctrine. If the decision was made in 1928 on the basis of Scripture, the decision should stand, regardless of culture. If it was a culturally influenced decision, it had no business being in the church orders. 

That prinicple should apply to the confessions as well. Cultural aspects do not belong.


----------



## KMK (Sep 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> They had a united testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus.





SemperFideles said:


> What differentiates a brilliant man like Durham from some of the brilliant men today is that he writes with a Pastor's heart.





SemperFideles said:


> The reason we're all so easily convinced that we have the right to assert that the Confessions and Creeds are all dorked up is because we've been raised with this autonomous mindset with respect to truth.





The divines were united. They were not necessarily uniform, but they were united. Their mission was to work together to create a document that would ultimately be of help to the flock. I am willing to hear any group of godly men who are united with a pastor's heart.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2007)

I guess the trick is how to utilize obviously new and (dare I say in some cases,---well, I can't say improved. I just can't. Mental block) discoveries in eschatology.

Let's take Vos and Ridderbos on the Kingdom and Eschatology (which amillennialist will disagree with me on this one?). This is a little (although an argument could be made not a substantive difference) in eschatology.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I don't agree Don. I used to think that the Confessions too narrowly define doctrine and that more ought to be specified but I think the desire to specify more is imprudent. It's no mystery that the legalism of a religion necessitates that more be spelled out. Have you ever picked up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Creedal formulations have never been about trying to answer all the questions but primarily to unite around essentials and keeping the heretics out.
> 
> I think the Southern Baptist Faith and Message reads in many parts just like an American would formulate a bunch of non-essentials. It doesn't transport itself well beyond the boundaries of the United States. The WCF, 3FU, or LBCF by contrast is largely trans-cultural.



I'm just going to have to disagree, and I would add that the emphasis on a hundreds-year old document with somewhat antiquated language use from another country is one reason why the Reformed faith is not spreading nearly as fast as other forms of Christianity despite the fact that it is biblical. I'm not saying the documents are not great or monumental. They are. But let's just say I prefer other versions than the King James and modern commentaries over ancient ones because they are more relevant to where I am at.



SemperFideles said:


> I remember Scalia lecturing to us at Command and Staff College a few years ago. He had been asked to review and comment on the Constitution for the EU (before it fell through in the countries around Europe). The document was hundreds of pages long. In contrast, our Constitution is a paltry several pages long and, theoretically, could still guide the country by its cornerstone principles. In the end, if everything is a cornerstone principle then nothing is.



True enough, but don't forget that many were not happy with it and a Bill of Rights was added at the onset, and we continue to make amendments and corrections to it to this day.


----------

