# Confessional Revision: Is It Really Possible?



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 6, 2008)

Okay, I know that you can revise a confession of faith, but I tend to get the impression that once you go down a revisionist road then the whole content of the WCF (for instance) is up in the air. 

Currently, I only have one exception (that I know of) to the Westminster Standards - that of 25:6 were it affirms that the papacy is in the church, and that the papacy is the man of sin. However, I would be reluctant to call for this to be revised, because once you start, where do you stop? 

Consequently, if I was elected to office I would decline, because I would not swear to something with crossed fingers.


----------



## MW (Jan 6, 2008)

It would be worth the time and effort to discuss with session or presbytery as to their understanding of this section, and whether your view is in fact contrary to the "doctrine" of the Confession. No conscientious overseer would want to see a man qualified for office unnecessarily hindered from taking up the work. Blessings!



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Okay, I know that you can revise a confession of faith, but I tend to get the impression that once you go down a revisionist road then the whole content of the WCF (for instance) is up in the air.
> 
> Currently, I only have one exception (that I know of) to the Westminster Standards - that of 25:6 were it affirms that the papacy is in the church, and that the papacy is the man of sin. However, I would be reluctant to call for this to be revised, because once you start, where do you stop?
> 
> Consequently, if I was elected to office I would decline, because I would not swear to something with crossed fingers.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 6, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> It would be worth the time and effort to discuss with session or presbytery as to their understanding of this section, and whether your view is in fact contrary to the "doctrine" of the Confession. No conscientious overseer would want to see a man qualified for office unnecessarily hindered from taking up the work. Blessings!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply Mr. Winzer, this is something I will have to look into it further and discuss it with ministers when the opportunity arises.


----------



## Casey (Jan 6, 2008)

American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 6, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Okay, I know that you can revise a confession of faith, but I tend to get the impression that once you go down a revisionist road then the whole content of the WCF (for instance) is up in the air.
> 
> Currently, I only have one exception (that I know of) to the Westminster Standards - that of 25:6 were it affirms that the papacy is in the church, and that the papacy is the man of sin. However, I would be reluctant to call for this to be revised, because once you start, where do you stop?
> 
> Consequently, if I was elected to office I would decline, because I would not swear to something with crossed fingers.




It should be done. I forgot who said something to the effect: It is great that the confessions were written, but lamentable people stopped writing them. Something along those lines... WOuld it not stop most debates where 2 sides use the same phrase and make it mean something completely different? It may offend too many and ruffle feathers, was not Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda verbi dei: the war cry of the reformation? Yet the irony is I have read that even this phrase is translated differently..lol I guess the hard part is to have both a backward and forward site. I for one give tremendous prasie to Luther et al for not remaining frozen in time. Hence, neither should we. Yet we must also be cautious to make the Word of God the driving force.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 8, 2008)

Composing new confessions of faith is always possible because such secondary documents are always to be considered, in principle, errant and fallible. This is so because they are not products of biblical inspiration, but man-made documents.

Only the Old and New Testament scriptures, in their original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, are considered inspired. (Translations, of course, are not inspired.)

As for revising existing confessions of faith, of course - the same principle is involved.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 8, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I know that you can revise a confession of faith, but I tend to get the impression that once you go down a revisionist road then the whole content of the WCF (for instance) is up in the air.
> ...



I agree in theory, just not sure that it works in practice.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 8, 2008)

bookslover said:


> Composing new confessions of faith is always possible because such secondary documents are always to be considered, in principle, errant and fallible. This is so because they are not products of biblical inspiration, but man-made documents.
> 
> Only the Old and New Testament scriptures, in their original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, are considered inspired. (Translations, of course, are not inspired.)
> 
> As for revising existing confessions of faith, of course - the same principle is involved.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jan 8, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Okay, I know that you can revise a confession of faith, but I tend to get the impression that once you go down a revisionist road then the whole content of the WCF (for instance) is up in the air.



Well it didn't take long for the WCF to be revised by those who couldn't agree with it. John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, for example, helped craft the Savoy declaration. And then, of course, you have the 1689 Baptist revision as well. In other words there were eminent figures who struggled with the WCF.

What stops the revisionist slippery slope? The supreme norm of Scripture. Tradition (embodied in confessions) is always to be ruled by Scripture. In most cases where confessions have either ceased to be observed, or become so watered down as to be useless, it's because the supreme norm of Scripture has been surrendered. I agree with your doubts about the papacy precisely because I don't think the WCF position can be defended from Scripture. Scripture is the supreme norm that trumps tradition (and reason and experience) and gives us the confidence to revise a confession if need be.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Currently, I only have one exception (that I know of) to the Westminster Standards - that of 25:6 were it affirms that the papacy is in the church, and that the papacy is the man of sin. However, I would be reluctant to call for this to be revised, because once you start, where do you stop?



I think the WCF is a magnificent document and the Westminster Assembly was perhaps the greatest collective of divines ever to meet in church history, however, Daniel, your objection points to a problem I have with the WCF: it makes decisions on issues that believers should be free to disagree over. I'm not advocating a lowest common denominator Christianity at all--far from it; Christians can't become mature without moving from spiritual "milk" to spiritual "meat" (Heb. 5:11ff.). However, I would think the issue you raise concerning the papacy is a matter of freedom between believers and it's a great pity a line in the sand is drawn by the WCF at this point.

Hence, good men (like you) struggle to stay in a denomination over issues which mature believers can disagree. It's precisely this problem that then gives rise to subscription to the "system of doctrine" taught in the WCF, which is vague and hence causes all sorts of problems.

One other thing to think about is that the WCF doesn't address certain theological controversies that have arisen since 1647. I would think that confessions will need to be written until the Lord returns, precisely because they aren't inspired.

Every blessing brother Daniel.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 9, 2008)

> I think the WCF is a magnificent document and the Westminster Assembly was perhaps the greatest collective of divines ever to meet in church history, however, Daniel, your objection points to a problem I have with the WCF: it makes decisions on issues that believers should be free to disagree over. I'm not advocating a lowest common denominator Christianity at all--far from it; Christians can't become mature without moving from spiritual "milk" to spiritual "meat" (Heb. 5:11ff.). However, I would think the issue you raise concerning the papacy is a matter of freedom between believers and it's a great pity a line in the sand is drawn by the WCF at this point.
> 
> Hence, good men (like you) struggle to stay in a denomination over issues which mature believers can disagree. It's precisely this problem that then gives rise to subscription to the "system of doctrine" taught in the WCF, which is vague and hence causes all sorts of problems.



Marty

Thanks for your helpful comments. I suspect though that Mr Winzer (I am not playing a Jedi mind trick, he can correct me if I am wrong) would say that while Christians can disagree over things in the WCF, nonetheless, these are points which a church officer should be required to confess in order to be admitted to office. This is the position that I hold myself, for instance, I believe that church members can disagree over baptism, but that in order to be an elder you must be an infant baptist.


----------

