# A new Reformed Confession



## Herald

A well known figure among Reformed Baptists is on record as supporting a new Reformed confession. As a confessional Baptist I immediately recoil in response to this suggestion. My first, and I believe most pertinent question is, in which points do our current confessions fail or come short? I understand Baptists and Presbyterians will disagree on some aspects of ecclesiology and baptism. Those differences aside, is it necessary to draft a new confession? Is just another attempt at contextualization gone too far?

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I say these folks should go ahead and make a new confession so everyone knows what they actually will swear they believe; but as far as a replacement to those which some of us think are fine, forget-about-it.


----------



## JP Wallace

I don't see any need. The language is not convulted but careful, nor is it even that antiquated. The BCF could probably add in WCF's chapter on marriage and divorce - but in essence all the things that are supposedly missing are not missing at all.


----------



## Herald

I wonder whether one motivation for a new confession is to admit and omit certain doctrines/practices. 

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## Jack K

Very few Baptist churches these days are confessional at all. For example, my Baptist church is unlikely to ever embrace the LBC. But it might consider something Reformed and Baptist that gives more latitude than the LBC while still confessing far more that our current one-page faith statement does. So for my church, that would be an improvement. Even if it didn't codify everything we might like, it would still codify several important things that need to be codified.

Would it dilute things for others? I don't know. But if it gets more churches to become more confessional—even if not embracing as complete a confession as we might like—perhaps it isn't something to reject out of hand.


----------



## Tripel

I don't see a problem with seeking a new confession. The fact that the person sees the value of a confession is a good thing. The WCF and LBC are really good, but they are not perfect. I see no reason why a confession equally as good or better couldn't be written today.


----------



## Herald

I think the burden of proof for a new confession rests solely on those who would propose one. Starting with the two most subscribed to confessions on this board; where are they lacking? What is it about their over 300 years of staying power that makes them in need of an overhaul? 

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Bill The Baptist

A lot of reformed Baptists I have spoken with seem to take exception with the sabbatarianism that is contained in the LBC. Other than that, they may just desire something in simpler language since no one speaks English anymore


----------



## Rich Koster

Bill The Baptist said:


> A lot of reformed Baptists I have spoken with seem to take exception with the sabbatarianism that is contained in the LBC. Other than that, they may just desire something in simpler language since no one speaks English anymore



There are 1689LBCs with updated language available.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Any new Confession would certainly be less precise in any number of areas than the old Confessions. That much is sure.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Herald said:


> Starting with the two most subscribed to confessions on this board; where are they lacking?


Just speaking hypothetically about what sections could be changed to deal with problems that have arisen since the Westminster Assembly:
(I apologize if my comment reads more like a laundry list)

Sections relating to the Catholic church could be redone to deal with the post Vatican II RC, sections could also be included about the EO and LDS potentially since they were not really issues at the time the confessions were written. 
WSC 1:8 could be expanded to deal with issues such as textual variation. 
WSC 7:2 could be expanded or defended more given the recent challenges to the concept of the Covenant of Works


Of course the whole problem with writing a new confession is who is going to write it and who is going to confess it. There is much less ecclesiastical unity now then there was in the times when the earlier confessions were written so I fail to see the wisdom of spending time and energy to write a new confession for less people to proclaim.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Don't forget; any new confession is a post establishment confession (and since Presbyterians have only tinkered on the fringe for 350 years). Westminster was backed by the state and it still took them 7 years. And don't get me started on the number of extraordinary men there (how many of our leading lights rank _extraordinary_?). The church is divided; even the Reformed "pond". And the dynamics would be completely different depending on venue (Reformed; Presbyterian; Baptist). A new confession at this time that will get "standing" of any significance is a fantasy; it just isn't going to happen right now.


Unoriginalname said:


> Of course the whole problem with writing a new confession is who is going to write it and who is going to confess it. There is much less ecclesiastical unity now then there was in the times when the earlier confessions were written so I fail to see the wisdom of spending time and energy to write a new confession for less people to proclaim.


----------



## rbcbob

I have weighed in on this a number of times. A "new confession" whether in totality or as a revision of the Standards held by virtually everyone on this board is by logic and definition "not the existing and accepted Standard" but rather something other than said Standard. Just as surely as the owners of PB would have to declare that new thing acceptable for membership, so too would countless Churches have to approve this new thing as equally orthodox and binding, whether standing alone or sharing like status and authority. 

Many who casually clamor for a new confession have no idea of the paradigm shift entailed in such an action.


----------



## DMcFadden

Rich Koster said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of reformed Baptists I have spoken with seem to take exception with the sabbatarianism that is contained in the LBC. Other than that, they may just desire something in simpler language since no one speaks English anymore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 1689LBCs with updated language available.
Click to expand...


 [". . . no one speaks English anymore."]

A new confession would be desirable IF there are problems with understanding the old one (see above), IF there are reasons not to believe the old one, OR IF there are things that should be stated to apply even more pointedly to the context of today (either points left out of the old ones or requiring a more specific statement).

Considering the number of exceptions permitted in some of the Reformed denominations, I'm guessing that some of the Reformed groups honor the Westminster Standards more in the breach than in the observance?

For my money, I do not know a more beautiful or elegant set of confessional standards than the Westminster. While they may lack some of the warmth of the Heidelberg, they are a masterpiece and a gift to the Christian family.

My guess is that appeals for changes to them (or to the genetically related, more water-filled LBCF), relates more to a desire to get rid of the things that people commonly take exceptions to or restate them in a more dumbed down vernacular.


----------



## Herald

DMcFadden said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of reformed Baptists I have spoken with seem to take exception with the sabbatarianism that is contained in the LBC. Other than that, they may just desire something in simpler language since no one speaks English anymore
> 
> 
> 
> ift to the Christian family.
> 
> My guess is that appeals for changes to them (or to the genetically related, more water-filled LBCF), relates more to a desire to get rid of the things that people commonly take exceptions to or restate them in a more dumbed down vernacular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dennis, I'm not sure what you mean by "water filled" re: LBCF, but I agree that the motivation behind a new confession is to remove/introduce doctrine. I am not willing to grant the premise of those advocating a new confession that the idea has merit. Show me where the current confessional doctrine is wrong. All the conversations I have seen on this topic fail to address that issue. Its all about "new" and being "relevant" to a new generation. I can't help but see this as post-modern argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Dr. Gonzales has argued for an updating of the language into modern english - which is a valid point to argue:

Confessing the Faith: the 1689 for the 21st Century | It Is Written

Here's the forward of a new book updating the language of the 1689:



> The truths that this confession promoted fell out of favor for much of the twentieth century, but in the last fifty years there has been a great recovery of gospel truth among Evangelicals and once again there are those deeply committed to the doctrines of this confession. The English language, however, has changed over time, and just as there are phrases in the Authorized Version (1611), also known as the King James Version, that are no longer as clear as they once were due to linguistic change, so it is the case with the 1689 Confession. For this reason, this new rendition of the confession by Dr. Reeves is indeed welcome. He has sought to render it readable by the typical twenty-first-century Christian reader, but with minimal change and without sacrificing any of the riches of the original text. I believe he has succeeded admirably in both of these aims.
> 
> From the Foreword
> Michael A.G. Haykin
> Professor of Church History
> The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
> Louisville, KY




Also, elsewhere, Dr. Gonzales has made a few suggestions about the content of the confessions, here:

Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Affirming Inerrancy | It Is Written

For example, he suggests that the confession be updated in order to affirm inerrancy more explicitly:



> As Michael Horton observes, “Inerrancy was assumed more than explicitly formulated until it was challenged” in the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries.1. But with the advent of modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and neo-evangelicalism, the exact nature and extent of the Bible’s inspiration and infallibility came under intense debate.



Rather than dumbing-down the confession, it seems like many of the proposed changes would make doctrine more explicit (such as more closely defining inerrancy, marriage roles, etc). So any charge of desiring to "dumb-down the confession" doesn't seem justified.

However, ours is not a confessional age and it seems difficult/impossible for independents to propose a binding new confession anyway. 

I will remind Reformed Baptist readers that even many who claim strict subscriptionism will say things like Pastor Samuel Waldron does about the section where it says that the Pope is the Antichrist. Waldron, who I am sure claims to be confessional and who wrote a book about the 1689, writes (page 315) thusly about the Pope being Antichrist, 

_"This is one of those statements which would properly be deleted in a revision of the Confession._" 

Also, on page 484 and other places, Waldron speaks of "oversights" on the part of the writers of the 1689. 

I don't find Dr. Gonzales saying much more than Waldron here.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is the full quote by Pastor Sam Waldron below. To my knowledge, nobody has ever charged Waldron of trying to dumb-down the confession or of being "unconfessional" for his critique below of the words of those wise men who drew up the original confession:



> This is one of those statements which would properly be deleted in a revision of the Confession. Such a deletion must, however, be made, not because of any weakening of our convictions about the apostate condition of the church of Rome or the wicked and heretical character of the claims of the pope, but out of the exegetical conviction that the statement of the Confession is false or without adequate basis.



The OPC and the PCA have both removed that bit about the Pope is the Antichrist. I don't see anything overly controversial in Dr. Gonzales suggesting the same.


----------



## JohnGill

We have modern Bible versions, so why not a modern confession. If the arguments put forth for new Bible versions are not valid for a modern confession, then they are not valid for modern Bible versions. Consistency requires total denial or total affirmation. It is inconsistent to affirm the one and deny the other.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> A well known figure among Reformed Baptists is on record as supporting a new Reformed confession.



Why doesn't he write one? Why doesn't his church write one? We are Baptists. Aren't we supposed to be autonomous anyway. Its not like we are Presbyterians and need some kind of General Council to change a confession. 

Unless the part that he wants to change is the one that says, "To each of these churches therefore gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he has given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he has instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.


----------



## Tripel

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Any new Confession would certainly be less precise in any number of areas than the old Confessions. That much is sure.





NaphtaliPress said:


> Westminster was backed by the state and it still took them 7 years. And don't get me started on the number of extraordinary men there (how many of our leading lights rank _extraordinary_?).



I don't think the men tasked to writing the WCF were any more extraordinary than men in today's church. The confessions are not the Word of God, so I have no reason to think that Christian leaders today couldn't do just as good of a job. And trust me that this is in no way a criticism of Puritans. I'm just pointing out that they were human, and we have humans today who are just as wise and godly.

Do I think a new confession is necessary? Not really. The WCF is good enough for me. But if another good one is written, I'm happy to check it out. Just because a new one is written by 21st century minds does not mean it is inferior. 

The only writings that cannot be improved upon are the very words of God.


----------



## Pergamum

I think the OP most directly relates to a revision of the 1689 Baptist Confession and not the WCF.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well known figure among Reformed Baptists is on record as supporting a new Reformed confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why doesn't he write one? Why doesn't his church write one? We are Baptists. Aren't we supposed to be autonomous anyway. Its not like we are Presbyterians and need some kind of General Council to change a confession.
> 
> Unless the part that he wants to change is the one that says, "To each of these churches therefore gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he has given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he has instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.
Click to expand...


Ken, it is not so much a matter of "he" as it is the idea itself. A new confession has been championed by others. To answer your question, perhaps the reason "he" has not written one is because it would lack the weight of consensus. What allowed the LBCF to speak for so many was the weight given it by the number, and quality, of the signatories. 

Pergy was the only poster to mention anything close to a deficiency in the LBCF. I agree that the Pope is not the (definite article) Antichrist. I believe he is the spirit of Antichrist, so maybe I take an exception in that area. Do I want to see that portion of the confession redacted? Not particularly. Why? Because of the almost certain meddling by those with a more robust agenda. With some it is not just about updating the language, but actual changes to content. That is my personal concern. As with my preference for the modern NASB, I would not object to a 21st Century voice in the confession. But guarantee to me that is where it will stop. Those who are proposing a new confession will balk at that.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> I think the OP most directly relates to a revision of the 1689 Baptist Confession and not the WCF.



Mostly. But the leading proponent of this calls it a "new Reformed confession." I will not speak about his intent, but what if this new confession blurs the lines of distinction between Baptists and Presbyterians? What if it speaks to both sides of baptism, or a non-offensive view of the sacrament/ordinance? I can see some having that has part of their agenda. 

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Pergamum

Bill, 

Isn't changing the definite article in relation to the Pope a change in content and not merely a change in wording?

Also, your use of the term "meddling" is a curious one. What distinguishes between "updating" or "clarifying," "redacting," and "meddling?" 

I think that it is a reasonable goal to call together dozens of leading RB pastors to update or craft a revised document, especially in this age of conferences and preacher's meetings and associations. 

This may not be top priority at present (I believe that missions-sending from RB churches needs to be top priority at this time....our head knowledge eventually needs to lead to greater action in missions sooner or later)...but it is a worthy goal nonetheless. 

I would love to see documents addressing life issues, gender/marriage issues, and the current struggles of the church added as well, in the form of position papers.


----------



## Pergamum

p.s. what do you think his intent and agenda is?


----------



## Herald

Pergy, my use of "meddling" has to do with the intent of those who want a new confession. Is it all about using the vernacular of the day? Is that all they want? They need to be up front with their agenda. Also, what do they want changed? What do they want added? Why? 

Does any confession adequately represent every minute point of doctrine; address every social context; or claim to be infallible? No. Nor do I think that was the intent of the divines. In my opinion the exception to "the" Antichrist does not affect the theological integrity of the confession. But even though I take that exception I am quite pleased to be in the company of those who confessed the most important doctrines of the Christian faith. 

So, it comes back to my primary questions. What is lacking and what changes need to be made?

I like your idea about position papers. They have the ability to address specific issues while maintaining the integrity of the confessions. 



Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> p.s. what do you think his intent and agenda is?



I have already said that I cannot speak as to "his" intent or agenda. I can guess as to the intent and agenda of some. I have already given an opinion on that. 

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I think the men you may think are just the same as those back then and could do what they did, would disagree with you. And I'm happy you are fine with the WCF, because I expect we won't see anything similar for some time. The church is too fractured and full of heterodoxy and I suspect, if the thought is something just like the WCF, we need a century of persecution first. It may be, the next "WCF" or better than even, won't be by white English speaking folks. 


Tripel said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any new Confession would certainly be less precise in any number of areas than the old Confessions. That much is sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Westminster was backed by the state and it still took them 7 years. And don't get me started on the number of extraordinary men there (how many of our leading lights rank _extraordinary_?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the men tasked to writing the WCF were any more extraordinary than men in today's church. The confessions are not the Word of God, so I have no reason to think that Christian leaders today couldn't do just as good of a job. And trust me that this is in no way a criticism of Puritans. I'm just pointing out that they were human, and we have humans today who are just as wise and godly.
> 
> Do I think a new confession is necessary? Not really. The WCF is good enough for me. But if another good one is written, I'm happy to check it out. Just because a new one is written by 21st century minds does not mean it is inferior.
> 
> The only writings that cannot be improved upon are the very words of God.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rich Koster

"26.4 The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. In him is vested, by the appointment of the Father in a supreme and sovereign manner, all authority for the calling, institution, order and government of the church.1 The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be the head of the church, but he is the* (“that” in original LBC) antichrist, that 'man of lawlessness', and 'son of destruction', who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

Notice the language that was updated in this chapter.


----------



## Herald

Rich Koster said:


> "26.4 The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. In him is vested, by the appointment of the Father in a supreme and sovereign manner, all authority for the calling, institution, order and government of the church.1 The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be the head of the church, but he is the* (“that” in original LBC) antichrist, that 'man of lawlessness', and 'son of destruction', who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."
> 
> Notice the language that was updated in this chapter.



Rich, I do not want to derail the thread, but I have been so back and forth on that one part that I have taken the position of "I do not know." So, my exception is more of being unsettled on the matter. 

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Who is "the leading proponent?" 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## DMcFadden

Bill,

I was being "cute" with saying the LBCF was the WCF, "just a little more 'water filled'" comment. The LBCF is essentially the WCF with a nod to a couple of Baptist distinctives. Cf. XXIX.4: "4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."

I would be a hearty supporter of making inerrancy explicit rather than implicit. However, by the time someone gets around to putting it in print, will there be enough folks around who are willing to subscribe to it? That puppy is beginning to look like an endangered species in some quarters. How broadly would you cast the net of inerrancy? Does it include Enns? Longman? The various doubters of historical Adam? The "evangelical" proponents of the NPP? The deniers of imputation?

As usual, Chris nailed it with his comment: 


> The church is too fractured and full of heterodoxy and I suspect, if the thought is something just like the WCF, we need a century of persecution first.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> To answer your question, perhaps the reason "he" has not written one is because it would lack the weight of consensus.



I am often out of touch with what is going on in the American Church, but what consensus is there? As far as I know, ARBCA is the only consensus among Baptist churches. Does the Founders group within the SBC have a consensus? Is there a Baptist Seminary or other Baptist associations that subscribe fully to the LBC? I would like to know because it gets pretty lonely being an LBC guy.


----------



## Mushroom

Whether post-, historic pre-, or a-millennialist in eschatology, I like to think that all of the number of God's elect would agree that among THEM there will remain a consensus that the Truth will always be accepted and endorsed. If, in God's loving providence, there proceeds a better confession than those He has already provided, then I am confident that His people will subscribe to it, but only after very thorough 'Berean' vetting of same. As for me and my family, we fail to see the need for such improvement.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question, perhaps the reason "he" has not written one is because it would lack the weight of consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am often out of touch with what is going on in the American Church, but what consensus is there? As far as I know, ARBCA is the only consensus among Baptist churches. Does the Founders group within the SBC have a consensus? Is there a Baptist Seminary or other Baptist associations that subscribe fully to the LBC? I would like to know because it gets pretty lonely being an LBC guy.
Click to expand...


Ken, I guess that is the point. With no consensus as to the need for a new confession, it may be an idea whose time is not on the horizon. 

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Pergamum

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think the men you may think are just the same as those back then and could do what they did, would disagree with you. And I'm happy you are fine with the WCF, because I expect we won't see anything similar for some time. The church is too fractured and full of heterodoxy and I suspect, if the thought is something just like the WCF, we need a century of persecution first. It may be, the next "WCF" or better than even, won't be by white English speaking folks.
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any new Confession would certainly be less precise in any number of areas than the old Confessions. That much is sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Westminster was backed by the state and it still took them 7 years. And don't get me started on the number of extraordinary men there (how many of our leading lights rank _extraordinary_?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the men tasked to writing the WCF were any more extraordinary than men in today's church. The confessions are not the Word of God, so I have no reason to think that Christian leaders today couldn't do just as good of a job. And trust me that this is in no way a criticism of Puritans. I'm just pointing out that they were human, and we have humans today who are just as wise and godly.
> 
> Do I think a new confession is necessary? Not really. The WCF is good enough for me. But if another good one is written, I'm happy to check it out. Just because a new one is written by 21st century minds does not mean it is inferior.
> 
> The only writings that cannot be improved upon are the very words of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Wow, a lot to chew on!



> The church is too fractured and full of heterodoxy and I suspect, if the thought is something just like the WCF, we need a century of persecution first. It may be, the next "WCF" or better than even, won't be by white English speaking folks.


----------



## Herald

DMcFadden said:


> How broadly would you cast the net of inerrancy? Does it include Enns? Longman? The various doubters of historical Adam? The "evangelical" proponents of the NPP? The deniers of imputation?



Dennis, 

That is my concern. What fish get caught in that net? Some may have impeccable intentions, but things can easily get out of hand. 

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Goodcheer68

Herald said:


> Does any confession adequately represent every minute point of doctrine; address every social context; or claim to be infallible? No. Nor do I think that was the intent of the divines.


 I agree. Trying to update and keep things relevant will eventually take you down a road that never ends. It also makes it easier to begin to change the confessions to something that are completely different from what they first started out as.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Ken, I guess that is the point. With no consensus as to the need for a new confession, it may be an idea whose time is not on the horizon.



I agree. There are probably better ways to use time and money than a get together of the best RB minds for a 5 or 6 year meeting to make updates to an already excellent Baptist confession that almost no one cares about.


----------



## Pergamum

If Calvy-Baptists pooled their energies, I agree, something like this would be a bigger priority than making a new confession: The Radical.net Blog » Blog Archive » Cross: A New Student Missions Conference


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, I guess that is the point. With no consensus as to the need for a new confession, it may be an idea whose time is not on the horizon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. There are probably better ways to use time and money than a get together of the best RB minds for a 5 or 6 year meeting to make updates to an already excellent Baptist confession that almost no one cares about.
Click to expand...


Ken, don't be discouraged. Confessionalism is never going to be a majority position in the Church, but it is making strides in certain quarters. 

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## Unoriginalname

Probably the only legitimate need for a new reformed confession would come from a non Western Church where the cultural context would be so different from the world of the WCF, or Three Forms that it would merit a new confession, one dealing with paganism, charismatics and other heresies that infect that culture.


----------



## Herald

NaphtaliPress said:


> It may be, the next "WCF" or better than even, won't be by white English speaking folks.



Chris, this is an excellent point. Who is to say that someday we may see a Kampala Confession of Faith?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> If Calvy-Baptists pooled their energies, I agree, something like this would be a bigger priority than making a new confession: The Radical.net Blog » Blog Archive » Cross: A New Student Missions Conference



Looks interesting. My 17 year old son would love it.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Herald said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question, perhaps the reason "he" has not written one is because it would lack the weight of consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am often out of touch with what is going on in the American Church, but what consensus is there? As far as I know, ARBCA is the only consensus among Baptist churches. Does the Founders group within the SBC have a consensus? Is there a Baptist Seminary or other Baptist associations that subscribe fully to the LBC? I would like to know because it gets pretty lonely being an LBC guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ken, I guess that is the point. With no consensus as to the need for a new confession, it may be an idea whose time is not on the horizon.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


The Founders consensus is the Abstract of Principles (see Founders Ministries | About Us). However, suppose one decides to list his local congregation as Founders-friendly. Though the Founders webpage presents a brief list of historical Baptist Calvinistic confessions (with the idea that your congregation must subscribe to one of them and make such subscription public in your listing there), in practice congregations are listed there which merely adhere to the BFM 2000 (a fine document, though not on the list!) or label themselves as having no confession of faith. So the consensus isn't there as much as we'd like for it to be. 

I write this as one who admires the aims and work of the Founders, and also one whose congregation adheres to the BFM 2000 at present - so I hope this doesn't come across as casting stones! I am thoroughly happy with the 2LBCF and the Abstract of Principles as they are.


----------



## Foolish Gospel Preacher

Not to sound pessimistic, and not to remain stubbornly rooted in historical forms for the mere sake of tradition (though always for the sake of orthodoxy and clarity!), I have to wonder just whom it would help, since confessions are only as good as the men who hold them. I mean to say, men have always found a way to profess adherence to a creed but redefine it for themselves personally, thus orthodox statements continue to be the "standard" for wayward institutions. The same would be true of anything new. Men can always turn it into a rubber nose if they wish. So it seems to me that what is out there already is more than sufficient. What we need is more orthodox men, not more orthodox standards.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Josh, whether it's bacon or cats, your posts always make me smile! Ha ha!

And I agree with your feline friend.


----------



## One Little Nail

Tripel said:


> I don't see a problem with seeking a new confession. The fact that the person sees the value of a confession is a good thing. The WCF and LBC are really good, but they are not perfect. I see no reason why a confession equally as good or better couldn't be written today.



I think it should be horses for course's Confessions should come from the heart & mind of those who profess such, there's always been alot of people who don't completely subsribe to every jot & tittle of the various parts 
of our Reformed Confessions who hold mental reservations as such, these folk who are orthodox and differ as such on minor points should have their own modifications done to the WCF, just as the Congregationalist's ,the
Baptist's & U.S. Presso's have done in the past with their respective beliefs of Baptism,Church & Civil Government, just for the purpose of clarity,transparency & Honesty.What I'm advocating here as such is for Variation
within kind, the Creeds are Great ,Learned & Wise though I think there is room for those other little differences that Ministers have like Infra/Supra, Augustinian Traducianism/Federal Headship,Remarriage after divorce in 
some cases(adultery)/no remarriage,A-mill/Post-mill etc to be Inserted & the Confessions being modified for that Particular/Individual Congregation. I'm arguing for those orthodox differences that already exist within our 
Churches so that these Individual Congregations/Ministers could be more sincer, honest & forthwrite in what they specifically believe,for instance you could have two Pressy Churches in individual towns that belong 
to the same Local Presbytery yet each use slightly modified Confessions,& yet they still maintain Fellowship showing each other Christian Love,Charity & Forbearance,Liberty in regards to these minor differences.
What I'm not advocating is the allowance of Heresy such as on the Trinity, Justification,Romanism,Universalism & others etc,etc,etc.


----------



## One Little Nail

> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new Reformed Confession?
Click to expand...


Yes & No I think those folk who can honestly subscribe to the confessions should stick with them & their Congregations,there is room for variation within kind so to speak as Ive posted below &
even what if there are people for example,who've for instance have accepted Edward Fudges views on Conditional Immortality,Mortalism,Soul Sleep & Destructionism(Annihilation) yet still believe
in The Trinity,The Sovereignty of God in Salvation,His Decrees,Covenant Theology,Satisfaction of Christ,Justification, Regulative Principle Worship,Presbyterian Church Government A-Mill & other
such tenants of Orthodox Reformed Doctrine, couldn't they modify the Westminster Confession to mesh it with their Belief in Conditionalism Immortality just as the Congregationalists & Baptists
have done with their respective views of Baptism & Church Government,though they would need to form new churches which subsribe to these views just as the others have done, as an example,&
have still been allowed to subscribe to this forum.


----------



## Herald

It was mentioned in another thread that the same conditions that existed in the 17th Century do not exist today. Are we to expect that a new Reformed confession would not mirror the egalitarian Christianity of today, even within the Reformed community? 

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## JohnGill

Herald said:


> It was mentioned in another thread that the same conditions that existed in the 17th Century do not exist today. Are we to expect that a new Reformed confession would not mirror the egalitarian Christianity of today, even within the Reformed community? Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


 The problem with your statement is that it can also be used against modern Bible versions. If we refuse to affirm that the language of the confessions should be updated because of a lack of doctrinal stricture by those within the Reformed community today, then we must hold to the same position regarding modern Bible versions. "Are we to expect that a new Reformed _Bible Translation_ would not mirror the egalitarian Christianity of today, even within the Reformed community?" An argument against one is an argument against both.

If we wish to keep the ever changing Critical Text and its translations, then the confessions should be changed to reflect the doctrine of the current Reformed community. WCF/2LBCF 1.8 should be changed to reflect the current practice of modern textual criticism. We now "know" that the texts of scripture were not in fact _kept pure in all ages_, but needed the modern practice of textual criticism to determine for us the true text of scripture. Our confessions should reflect this change regarding scripture prevalent in the many of Reformed churches. WCF/2LBCF 4.1 should be changed to reflect our current understanding of science, a shifting sand if ever there was one, and show that 6 days may not be literal days but could be long ages of time. And we should change the Confessions' teaching on the civil magistrate to reflect the current R2K doctrine. I'm sure other changes could be found as well. Or we could abandon the atheism implicit in modern textual criticism and so-called science in favor of Reformation Bibles and what the Bible plainly teaches about Creation. And we could abandon R2K in favor of the Reformed teachings about the Civil Magistrate and its implications for us within our communities.


----------



## Herald

JohnGill said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was mentioned in another thread that the same conditions that existed in the 17th Century do not exist today. Are we to expect that a new Reformed confession would not mirror the egalitarian Christianity of today, even within the Reformed community? Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your statement is that it can also be used against modern Bible versions. If we refuse to affirm that the language of the confessions should be updated because of a lack of doctrinal stricture by those within the Reformed community today, then we must hold to the same position regarding modern Bible versions.
Click to expand...


Language is not the issue, content is. If the agenda of some of those who want a new confession(s) was simply to update the language from 16th Century language to 21st Century language, that is one debate. Changing content is something different altogether. 

Most modern Bible versions have sought to better render the English language, not to change content. Obviously this does not apply to paraphrase translations, but to serious translations like the NKJV, NASB, and ESV.



Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## JohnGill

Herald said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was mentioned in another thread that the same conditions that existed in the 17th Century do not exist today. Are we to expect that a new Reformed confession would not mirror the egalitarian Christianity of today, even within the Reformed community? Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your statement is that it can also be used against modern Bible versions. If we refuse to affirm that the language of the confessions should be updated because of a lack of doctrinal stricture by those within the Reformed community today, then we must hold to the same position regarding modern Bible versions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *Language is not the issue, content is. If the agenda of some of those who want a new confession(s) was simply to update the language from 16th Century language to 21st Century language, that is one debate. Changing content is something different altogether.
> 
> *2) *Most modern Bible versions have sought to better render the English language, not to change content. Obviously this does not apply to paraphrase translations, but to serious translations like the NKJV, NASB, and ESV.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


*1) *Language is the issue, since the content of doctrine is expressed in language. "Propitiation" is completely different than "atoning sacrifice". Examples could be multiplied ad nauseam of legitimate poor word choices in modern versions. Assume we "update" the language of the current confessions. Modern English is less precise than the English of the Confessions and the end result of such an "update" will be less than the original. 

*2) *Ignoring for now the translations, the Critical Greek text does change content from the Greek text used by the Reformers. Modern textual critics openly admit that. They also openly admit that these changes effect Bible doctrine. However, the majority if not all of those changes reflected in the critical text were known by the Reformers and the Reformers outright rejected them as spurious. We should do the same.

Shouldn't the confessions used by Reformed churches that hold to modern textual criticism and its products change their confession to more accurately express their doctrine of Scripture? And shouldn't those Reformed churches that deny 6-day creation change their confession to reflect their views? The same goes for R2K churches, New Calvinism, and all the other Reformed Churches that no longer hold to the original meaning of Reformation Confessions.


----------



## littlepeople

I would be happy to see the church come together to make a new translation, but I think even that would be asking too much.


----------



## Herald

JohnGill said:


> Shouldn't the confessions used by Reformed churches that hold to modern textual criticism and its products change their confession to more accurately express their doctrine of Scripture? And shouldn't those Reformed churches that deny 6-day creation change their confession to reflect their views? The same goes for R2K churches, New Calvinism, and all the other Reformed Churches that no longer hold to the original meaning of Reformation Confessions.



Speaking as a Reformed Baptist, there is no consensus among Reformed Baptists on textual criticism. There is consensus on our confession. I suppose a group of Reformed Baptist pastors and theologians may do just as you have suggested - draft a confession to reflect the modern use of language. It will lead to polarization, not unity. I doubt whether there will be enough critical mass among Reformed Baptists to garner support for a new confession that will have broad appeal.


----------



## Herald

As unlikely as I think it is, if broad support for a new confession among Reformed Baptists develops, I will certainly join the debate. The last thing I will want to see happen is a fracture among Reformed Baptists on this very crucial area. I would rather throw a wrench into the works through vigorous debate than see confessed biblical truth compromised. 

I suppose there is good that can come from this debate. The Reformed Baptist movement is growing. With that growth comes opportunity and danger. The opportunity is for increased confessionalism among Baptists. The danger is a form of confessionalism that reflects modern egalitarianism. It must be opposed.


----------



## JohnGill

Herald said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the confessions used by Reformed churches that hold to modern textual criticism and its products change their confession to more accurately express their doctrine of Scripture? And shouldn't those Reformed churches that deny 6-day creation change their confession to reflect their views? The same goes for R2K churches, New Calvinism, and all the other Reformed Churches that no longer hold to the original meaning of Reformation Confessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Reformed Baptist, there is no consensus among Reformed Baptists on textual criticism. There is consensus on our confession. I suppose a group of Reformed Baptist pastors and theologians may do just as you have suggested - draft a confession to reflect the modern use of language. It will lead to polarization, not unity. I doubt whether there will be enough critical mass among Reformed Baptists to garner support for a new confession that will have broad appeal.
Click to expand...


There is no consensus on the confession by Reformed Baptists and our churches. Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF. The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled. Reformed Baptist churches who hold to some form of evolutionism do not hold to chapter 4 of the confession. Reformed Baptist churches who hold R2K, New Calvinist, New Covenant Theology, or other such views do not hold to the 2LBCF. Unless all Reformed Baptist churches reject these various philosophies, then there is no consensus and never can be consensus on our confession. 

To have consensus requires agreement on the meaning of the confession as it was written in toto. I cannot say I affirm the 2LBCF while at the same time taking exception with its doctrine of scripture, doctrine of creation, doctrine of justification, doctrine of civil magistrates, etc. It is similar to FV'ers claiming to hold to the WCF, when in fact through their redefinition of terms they do not hold to it. It would be better for the FV'ers, Critical Text supporters, non-6-dayers, R2K, New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology advocates, etc. to each have their own confessions that accurately reflect their doctrinal peculiarities than for them to claim they hold to that which they do not. The Reformed Confessions as written and intended do not support any of these modern encrustations unless we wish to read back into them our modern views. But in doing that we make the language of the confessions meaningless.


----------



## Herald

JohnGill said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the confessions used by Reformed churches that hold to modern textual criticism and its products change their confession to more accurately express their doctrine of Scripture? And shouldn't those Reformed churches that deny 6-day creation change their confession to reflect their views? The same goes for R2K churches, New Calvinism, and all the other Reformed Churches that no longer hold to the original meaning of Reformation Confessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Reformed Baptist, there is no consensus among Reformed Baptists on textual criticism. There is consensus on our confession. I suppose a group of Reformed Baptist pastors and theologians may do just as you have suggested - draft a confession to reflect the modern use of language. It will lead to polarization, not unity. I doubt whether there will be enough critical mass among Reformed Baptists to garner support for a new confession that will have broad appeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no consensus on the confession by Reformed Baptists and our churches. Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF. The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled. Reformed Baptist churches who hold to some form of evolutionism do not hold to chapter 4 of the confession. Reformed Baptist churches who hold R2K, New Calvinist, New Covenant Theology, or other such views do not hold to the 2LBCF. Unless all Reformed Baptist churches reject these various philosophies, then there is no consensus and never can be consensus on our confession.
> 
> To have consensus requires agreement on the meaning of the confession as it was written in toto. I cannot say I affirm the 2LBCF while at the same time taking exception with its doctrine of scripture, doctrine of creation, doctrine of justification, doctrine of civil magistrates, etc. It is similar to FV'ers claiming to hold to the WCF, when in fact through their redefinition of terms they do not hold to it. It would be better for the FV'ers, Critical Text supporters, non-6-dayers, R2K, New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology advocates, etc. to each have their own confessions that accurately reflect their doctrinal peculiarities than for them to claim they hold to that which they do not. The Reformed Confessions as written and intended do not support any of these modern encrustations unless we wish to read back into them our modern views. But in doing that we make the language of the confessions meaningless.
Click to expand...


Chris, perhaps I do not interact with the particular Reformed Baptist churches you are mentioning (not by name, but apparently by what they take exception to). About the only exception I have run into among like-minded churches is the Pope being the Antichrist. Baptists being Baptists, any church can claim the title "Reformed Baptist." I should have qualified my statement. The churches I have knowledge of are either ARBCA affiliated or strong 1689 churches. Our church is unaffiliated. The Pope being the Antichrist is the only part of the confession that is debated between our elders. It is precisely because the 1689 LBCF has proven to be an accurate summation of biblical doctrine and practice that our church adopted it over two years ago. Our elders are divided on TR vs. CT, but it has not caused a problem.


----------



## rbcbob

JohnGill said:


> Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF.




This seems to me to be a severe charge against many good brethren with whom I fellowship and to whom I grant that they in sincerity and in accordance with their understanding do indeed wholeheartedly embrace Chapter One of our Confession. They, on their part and I, on my part believe that each of us (notwithstanding textual critical disagreements) hold vigorously to 1:8 -



> 2LBC 1:8. "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and *the New Testament in Greek* (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), *being immediately inspired by God*, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic ..."





JohnGill said:


> The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled.



This is a strong assertion and is not conceded by all. It requires no small debate and demonstration. I personally am thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the Byzantine Text Form and am persuaded that the rise of critical texts in the past two centuries to be a blunder of great magnitude. However, that good brethren have given credence to the theory does not necessarily impugn their integrity.


----------



## JohnGill

Herald said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the confessions used by Reformed churches that hold to modern textual criticism and its products change their confession to more accurately express their doctrine of Scripture? And shouldn't those Reformed churches that deny 6-day creation change their confession to reflect their views? The same goes for R2K churches, New Calvinism, and all the other Reformed Churches that no longer hold to the original meaning of Reformation Confessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Reformed Baptist, there is no consensus among Reformed Baptists on textual criticism. There is consensus on our confession. I suppose a group of Reformed Baptist pastors and theologians may do just as you have suggested - draft a confession to reflect the modern use of language. It will lead to polarization, not unity. I doubt whether there will be enough critical mass among Reformed Baptists to garner support for a new confession that will have broad appeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no consensus on the confession by Reformed Baptists and our churches. Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF. The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled. Reformed Baptist churches who hold to some form of evolutionism do not hold to chapter 4 of the confession. Reformed Baptist churches who hold R2K, New Calvinist, New Covenant Theology, or other such views do not hold to the 2LBCF. Unless all Reformed Baptist churches reject these various philosophies, then there is no consensus and never can be consensus on our confession.
> 
> To have consensus requires agreement on the meaning of the confession as it was written in toto. I cannot say I affirm the 2LBCF while at the same time taking exception with its doctrine of scripture, doctrine of creation, doctrine of justification, doctrine of civil magistrates, etc. It is similar to FV'ers claiming to hold to the WCF, when in fact through their redefinition of terms they do not hold to it. It would be better for the FV'ers, Critical Text supporters, non-6-dayers, R2K, New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology advocates, etc. to each have their own confessions that accurately reflect their doctrinal peculiarities than for them to claim they hold to that which they do not. The Reformed Confessions as written and intended do not support any of these modern encrustations unless we wish to read back into them our modern views. But in doing that we make the language of the confessions meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris, perhaps I do not interact with the particular Reformed Baptist churches you are mentioning (not by name, but apparently by what they take exception to). About the only exception I have run into among like-minded churches is the Pope being the Antichrist. Baptists being Baptists, any church can claim the title "Reformed Baptist." I should have qualified my statement. The churches I have knowledge of are either ARBCA affiliated or strong 1689 churches. Our church is unaffiliated. The Pope being the Antichrist is the only part of the confession that is debated between our elders. It is precisely because the 1689 LBCF has proven to be an accurate summation of biblical doctrine and practice that our church adopted it over two years ago. Our elders are divided on TR vs. CT, but it has not caused a problem.
Click to expand...


My point was that they do not take exception to those parts of the 2LBCF with which they disagree. Whether the disagreement is explicitly taught from the pulpit or implicitly held through their affirmation of variations on evolutionism, in using critical text translations, New Calvinism, etc., they are in disagreement with the confession. Those areas of disagreement should be highlighted.

The division amongst your elders over CT & TR should cause problems. The underlying philosophy of both schools are diametrically opposed. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one of those philosophies can be in line with the 2LBCF's teaching on scripture.


----------



## rbcbob

JohnGill said:


> The division amongst your elders over CT & TR should cause problems. The underlying philosophy of both schools are diametrically opposed. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one of those philosophies can be in line with the 2LBCF's teaching on scripture.



Non Sequitur. They might each be wrong.


----------



## JohnGill

rbcbob said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1) *This seems to me to be a severe charge against many good brethren with whom I fellowship and to whom I grant that they in sincerity and in accordance with their understanding do indeed wholeheartedly embrace Chapter One of our Confession. They, on their part and I, on my part believe that each of us (notwithstanding textual critical disagreements) hold vigorously to 1:8 -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2LBC 1:8. "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and *the New Testament in Greek* (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), *being immediately inspired by God*, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic ..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *2.) *This is a strong assertion and is not conceded by all. It requires no small debate and demonstration. I personally am thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the Byzantine Text Form and am persuaded that the rise of critical texts in the past two centuries to be a blunder of great magnitude. However, that good brethren have given credence to the theory does not necessarily impugn their integrity.
Click to expand...


1) My point is that the understanding of the framers of the 2LBCF and other Reformers on the Doctrine of Scripture is contrary to the philosophy of modern textual criticism and its teachings. Modern textual critics openly admit this and some even go so far as to chastise those who hold to the original intent of the Reformers as naive. In other words, one cannot hold to 1.8 unless one agrees with the original intent of the writers of 1.8. CT supporters do not. I have no problem with this, but they should re-write the confession at this point to reflect their divergence from the understanding of the original writers.

2) Whether conceded by all or not is immaterial. We can go to the writings of the Reformers on Scripture and read what they affirmed and denied. We find this in their theologies (Turretin, Owen, Gill, etc.) and in the Reformed confessions. We know that they knew of the so-called problem texts (Comma Johanneum, pericope de adultera, Mark's ending, etc.) and that they affirmed the text of the TR as "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic". The underlying texts of the CT they set aside as not useful for the church or outright condemned their usage. Their strongest condemnations were used against the Catholics who sought to undermine _Sola Scriptura_ by an appeal to the so-called problem texts. To the Reformers, these so-called problem texts did not call into question any of the text of scripture because they believed the texts missing these "problem texts" were inferior. They kept these so-called problem texts and affirmed them as genuine. They did not believe that the TR was so polluted that it needed to be changed and reworked until it match the _autographa_; an impossible task as the _autographa_ do not exist. They instead believed that the TR accurately reflected the original autographs even with the minute variations in the Byzantine text form they had and because the TR accurately reflected the original autographs that it was therefore authentic. That is a vastly different view than modern textual criticism. 

Stating these simple facts does not impugn the integrity of those that implicitly or explicitly affirm the CT and claim to hold to 1.8 nor the integrity of those that implicitly or explicitly hold to some variant of evolutionism and claim to hold to Chapter 4. It merely demonstrates that they are reading their own views into the Reformed Confession. That should be pointed out to them. Just as New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology supporters, R2K supporters have also read into the confessions their own views. This is working backwards. I can make the confession say anything I want doing it that way and the FV'ers and other such groups do just that. It is similar to the practice of sodomite supporters reading their views into the texts dealing with sodomites. Now while many sodomite supporters and FV'ers do this deliberately, I believe many CT advocates and even some FV'ers, those that hold some variant of evolution, and sodomite supporters do so unknowingly. I also believe many egalitarians do this unknowingly as well. It should be made clear that one is not holding to a confession, whether the WCF, 2LBCF, Savoy Declaration, Belgic Confession, 2nd Helvetic Confession, etc., unless one is also holding to the original meaning of said confession. Just as I cannot be said to hold to what the Bible teaches about some doctrine if I am reading into it my personal beliefs, so I cannot be said to hold to some confession if I read into the confession my personal beliefs whether those beliefs deal with FV, textual criticism, New Covenant Theology, New Calvinism, egalitarianism, women deacons, pre-tribulationism, dispensationalism, etc.


----------



## JohnGill

rbcbob said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The division amongst your elders over CT & TR should cause problems. The underlying philosophy of both schools are diametrically opposed. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one of those philosophies can be in line with the 2LBCF's teaching on scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non Sequitur. They might each be wrong.
Click to expand...


That presupposes that the Reformers and writers of the 2LBCF did not hold to a TR position. We know from their writings that they did.


----------



## DMcFadden

As others have said, there are a few modern English 1689s out there. 

The 1975 version can be found at: Founders Ministries | A Faith to Confess: The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
The 2001 revision of the 1999 Andrew Kerkham one can be viewed at: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
The newest one (Reeves) that Gonzales was touting: http://www.reeveshome.org/modern1689/1689_modern.pdf


----------



## Herald

JohnGill said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1) *This seems to me to be a severe charge against many good brethren with whom I fellowship and to whom I grant that they in sincerity and in accordance with their understanding do indeed wholeheartedly embrace Chapter One of our Confession. They, on their part and I, on my part believe that each of us (notwithstanding textual critical disagreements) hold vigorously to 1:8 -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2LBC 1:8. "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and *the New Testament in Greek* (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), *being immediately inspired by God*, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic ..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *2.) *This is a strong assertion and is not conceded by all. It requires no small debate and demonstration. I personally am thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the Byzantine Text Form and am persuaded that the rise of critical texts in the past two centuries to be a blunder of great magnitude. However, that good brethren have given credence to the theory does not necessarily impugn their integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) My point is that the understanding of the framers of the 2LBCF and other Reformers on the Doctrine of Scripture is contrary to the philosophy of modern textual criticism and its teachings. Modern textual critics openly admit this and some even go so far as to chastise those who hold to the original intent of the Reformers as naive. In other words, one cannot hold to 1.8 unless one agrees with the original intent of the writers of 1.8. CT supporters do not. I have no problem with this, but they should re-write the confession at this point to reflect their divergence from the understanding of the original writers.
> 
> 2) Whether conceded by all or not is immaterial. We can go to the writings of the Reformers on Scripture and read what they affirmed and denied. We find this in their theologies (Turretin, Owen, Gill, etc.) and in the Reformed confessions. We know that they knew of the so-called problem texts (Comma Johanneum, pericope de adultera, Mark's ending, etc.) and that they affirmed the text of the TR as "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic". The underlying texts of the CT they set aside as not useful for the church or outright condemned their usage. Their strongest condemnations were used against the Catholics who sought to undermine _Sola Scriptura_ by an appeal to the so-called problem texts. To the Reformers, these so-called problem texts did not call into question any of the text of scripture because they believed the texts missing these "problem texts" were inferior. They kept these so-called problem texts and affirmed them as genuine. They did not believe that the TR was so polluted that it needed to be changed and reworked until it match the _autographa_; an impossible task as the _autographa_ do not exist. They instead believed that the TR accurately reflected the original autographs even with the minute variations in the Byzantine text form they had and because the TR accurately reflected the original autographs that it was therefore authentic. That is a vastly different view than modern textual criticism.
> 
> Stating these simple facts does not impugn the integrity of those that implicitly or explicitly affirm the CT and claim to hold to 1.8 nor the integrity of those that implicitly or explicitly hold to some variant of evolutionism and claim to hold to Chapter 4. It merely demonstrates that they are reading their own views into the Reformed Confession. That should be pointed out to them. Just as New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology supporters, R2K supporters have also read into the confessions their own views. This is working backwards. I can make the confession say anything I want doing it that way and the FV'ers and other such groups do just that. It is similar to the practice of sodomite supporters reading their views into the texts dealing with sodomites. Now while many sodomite supporters and FV'ers do this deliberately, I believe many CT advocates and even some FV'ers, those that hold some variant of evolution, and sodomite supporters do so unknowingly. I also believe many egalitarians do this unknowingly as well. It should be made clear that one is not holding to a confession, whether the WCF, 2LBCF, Savoy Declaration, Belgic Confession, 2nd Helvetic Confession, etc., unless one is also holding to the original meaning of said confession. Just as I cannot be said to hold to what the Bible teaches about some doctrine if I am reading into it my personal beliefs, so I cannot be said to hold to some confession if I read into the confession my personal beliefs whether those beliefs deal with FV, textual criticism, New Covenant Theology, New Calvinism, egalitarianism, women deacons, pre-tribulationism, dispensationalism, etc.
Click to expand...


Chris, enough. We are not turning this into a textual criticism thread. If you want to carry on that discussion start a new thread. 

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> The Reformed Baptist movement is growing.



This is good news. Have you seen evidence of this?


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Reformed Baptist movement is growing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is good news. Have you seen evidence of this?
Click to expand...


Yes. ARBCA is planting churches. Our church adopting the 1689 LBC two years ago is anecdotal evidence. The upswing in Reformed Baptist scholarship is further proof. There is renewed interest in Calvinism among Baptists. The debates in the SBC support that. All good news in my estimation.


----------



## MW

A confession is going to function differently in different church polities. In Presbyterian and Reformed churches the congregations are united necessarily, by divine right, and the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union, so a change of confession touches on the divine right of church government. In Congregational and Independent churches, where association is voluntary, the alliance is by human choice, and the confession does nothing more than express the voluntary consent of the members, so a change of confession is not going to have the same significance as in church governments which function by divine right.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> A confession is going to function differently in different church polities. In Presbyterian and Reformed churches the congregations are united necessarily, by divine right, and the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union, so a change of confession touches on the divine right of church government. In Congregational and Independent churches, where association is voluntary, the alliance is by human choice, and the confession does nothing more than express the voluntary consent of the members, so a change of confession is not going to have the same significance as in church governments which function by divine right.



Matthew,

Please explain what you mean by, "the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union". How does this impact the individual church member under the Presbyterian schema?


----------



## timmopussycat

Armourbearer said:


> A confession is going to function differently in different church polities. In Presbyterian and Reformed churches the congregations are united necessarily, by divine right, and the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union, so a change of confession touches on the divine right of church government. In Congregational and Independent churches, where association is voluntary, the alliance is by human choice, and the confession does nothing more than express the voluntary consent of the members, so a change of confession is not going to have the same significance as in church governments which function by divine right.



I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Even secular associations have constitutions that function as the basis of a union between groups that come together and changing these documents can highly significant impacts - even if all the association's members don't consent - and can lead to major repercussions. (Just ask any Canadian on this board who remembers the brohouda raised by repatriation of, and resultant amendments to, the Canadian constitution two decades ago.)

As I understand confessional RB churches, the 1689 is to RB's exactly what the WCF is to confessional Presbyterians in that each confession expresses what the community believes to be the mind of the Lord concerning critical doctrines of the Christian faith. It seems to me that a change in either confession is not a rejection of "the crown rights of King Jesus" but rather a recognition by the confessing community that it had previously misunderstood the mind of the Lord on the point in question.


----------



## MW

Tim, The ARBCA statement of Faith recommends the 1689 Confession in the words of C.H. Spurgeon: "This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith." For Presbyterian churches the Confession of Faith is their "subordinate standard."

Bill, as individual church members do not subscribe the confession the impact will only be in terms of the way the confession functions on their overseers.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Tim, The ARBCA statement of Faith recommends the 1689 Confession in the words of C.H. Spurgeon: "This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith." For Presbyterian churches the Confession of Faith is their "subordinate standard."



Matthew, I wonder how the 1689 LBC is less of a "subordinate standard" in RB churches. Membership in our church is not dependent on confessional subscription, although prospective members must agree to submit to the church's position that the confession serves as an authoritative statement on doctrine and practice, and will be used both to teach and correct. I confess that the scope and impact of confessional subscription does come down to the conviction of particular RB congregations.


----------



## Petty France

DMcFadden said:


> I would be a hearty supporter of making inerrancy explicit rather than implicit.



The LBCF asserts inerrancy when it says "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, *certain*, and infallible rule." That which is certain is absolutely true. It does not have any error which would subvert the faith that you invest in it. If this makes inerrancy implicit, that is merely the result of language change over time. But the confession explicitly declares the contents of scripture to be certain, that is containing no error (compare God's knowledge which is not "uncertain" in 2.2).



JohnGill said:


> If we wish to keep the ever changing Critical Text and its translations, then the confessions should be changed to reflect the doctrine of the current Reformed community. WCF/2LBCF 1.8 should be changed to reflect the current practice of modern textual criticism. We now "know" that the texts of scripture were not in fact _kept pure in all ages_, but needed the modern practice of textual criticism to determine for us the true text of scripture. Our confessions should reflect this change regarding scripture prevalent in the many of Reformed churches.



LBCF 1.8 simply asserts that we have not lost any scripture throughout the ages. All of the copies have survived in spite of vicious persecution and natural loss (like many ancient works that no longer exist). Considering the scarcity of many ancient works as well as the disappearance of many ancient works, and comparing that to the proliferation of texts that we have, the preservation of the Bible is rightly attributed to God's "singular care and providence." But it does not force us to say "one text has been preserved" but rather "the texts now in our possession have been preserved." We don't have to find the text behind the text as though the texts we have are not the bible. We can trust the manuscripts given to us. Nevertheless that still does not prevent us from comparing, contrasting, and collating these texts in order to avoid the minor discrepancies (not errors) that arise here and there.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rev. Winzer,

When you made note that the Confession functions differently as a basis for union, it seems you make a significant observation in ecclesiatical polity that I believe is being missed here. In the congregational setting the substandard has only voluntary acknowledgement whereas in the Reformed Polity the Churches are bound to each other in their confession. They are responsible for observing one another and making sure the soul of the Church is kept healthy as they have the divine right and responsibility for each other. In the Congregational setting they can only make recommendations from congregation to congregation. They depend upon a unity whereas the Reformed depend upon a union that promotes unity. Am I getting this correct? 



armourbearer said:


> In Presbyterian and Reformed churches the congregations are united necessarily, by divine right, and the confession functions constitutionally as the basis of union, so a change of confession touches on the divine right of church government. In Congregational and Independent churches, where association is voluntary, the alliance is by human choice, and the confession does nothing more than express the voluntary consent of the members, so a change of confession is not going to have the same significance as in church governments which function by divine right.


----------



## Christusregnat

I admire a thirteen-year-old's zeal to instruct a PhD in astrophysics on the finer points of his science, in a comedic sort of way.

The Westminster divines were learned in the Scriptures, theology, philosophy, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Patristics, Logic, Rhetoric, classical literature, and were refined by the fires of persecution to prepare them to write a Confession of Faith. They exceled modern men in piety, wisdom, rationality, preaching, respect of previous theologians, knowledge of contemporary opponents, and a host of other topics.

The least of these men is better than our best. We are a pool of amateurs seeking to correct an august body of learned and pious divines.

There's a technical term for this sort of attitude: laughable.


----------



## timmopussycat

I've had no dealings with ARBCA churches and thus was not aware of the ARBCA statement on their website before you pointed it out. But I notice that the statement there appears to be addressed to individuals rather than churches. If a church accepts the 1689 as the Scriptural position on matters discussed, attempts to change the confession result in the situation I mentioned.


----------



## timmopussycat

Christusregnat said:


> I admire a thirteen-year-old's zeal to instruct a PhD in astrophysics on the finer points of his science, in a comedic sort of way.





Christusregnat said:


> The Westminster divines were learned in the Scriptures, theology, philosophy, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Patristics, Logic, Rhetoric, classical literature, and were refined by the fires of persecution to prepare them to write a Confession of Faith. They exceled modern men in piety, wisdom, rationality, preaching, respect of previous theologians, knowledge of contemporary opponents, and a host of other topics.
> 
> The least of these men is better than our best. We are a pool of amateurs seeking to correct an august body of learned and pious divines.
> 
> There's a technical term for this sort of attitude: laughable.




There's a technical term for presuming that since the WD's were so learned in so many things that their formulations, more than adequate for their day, must be in no need of refinement to face later developments and decays in Christian thinking: practical heresy. And before anybody jumps on me for saying this, remember that only the Scriptures are infallible. 

The rules of logic are still taught in some places today and any 13 year old could (hypothetically) show that WA made errors at one or more points by demonstrating that given WCF WSC or WLC assertions are neither direct scriptural statement nor derived by good and necessary consequence from the same. And what will be at issue in the discussions is not the age of the teacher but the accuracy of his logic.


----------



## Herald

Christusregnat said:


> I admire a thirteen-year-old's zeal to instruct a PhD in astrophysics on the finer points of his science, in a comedic sort of way.
> 
> The Westminster divines were learned in the Scriptures, theology, philosophy, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Patristics, Logic, Rhetoric, classical literature, and were refined by the fires of persecution to prepare them to write a Confession of Faith. They exceled modern men in piety, wisdom, rationality, preaching, respect of previous theologians, knowledge of contemporary opponents, and a host of other topics.
> 
> The least of these men is better than our best. We are a pool of amateurs seeking to correct an august body of learned and pious divines.
> 
> There's a technical term for this sort of attitude: laughable.



Adam, to whom are you referring? Whose attitude are you calling laughable?

Neither the Westminster divines nor the framers of the 1689 LBC are on a pedestal. One of the reason why these confessions have lasted for over 300 years is because they have withstood scrutiny, criticism, and inquiry. There is nothing wrong with honest questioning.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> But I notice that the statement there appears to be addressed to individuals rather than churches.



As Bill points out,



Herald said:


> I confess that the scope and impact of confessional subscription does come down to the conviction of particular RB congregations.



That is all it could do. In Presbyterianism, the presbytery is the church by divine right. In congregationalism, only the congregation is the church by divine right. Thus a broader association has no right apart from what the congregations give to it. Such an association could never exercise the authority of a presbytery in the matter of confessional subscription. The two simply cannot function the same way.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> Adam, to whom are you referring? Whose attitude are you calling laughable?
> 
> Neither the Westminster divines nor the framers of the 1689 LBC are on a pedestal. One of the reason why these confessions have lasted for over 300 years is because they have withstood scrutiny, criticism, and inquiry. There is nothing wrong with honest questioning.



I was wondering the same thing. Who are you speaking about Adam? 

I do believe that we should hold some people and even their work with a bit more honor and reverence than others Bill. And I believe that has scriptural backing here.



> 1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.



Part of the problem I see today is that the gifts of God that we have been graced with are not held with proper esteem. I am not saying we should revere Pastors or the WCF as the scriptures are worthy of. But those same scriptures also tell us that we should hold some people and their counsel with more esteem than a lot of people want to give them today. And that is understandable. We were raised in the God is dead generation. We were taught that questioning and going agains authority was healthy. But there is a point where God tells us to revere things and people a bit more than the common if their work and conversation measure up.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> When you made note that the Confession functions differently as a basis for union, it seems you make a significant observation in ecclesiatical polity that I believe is being missed here. In the congregational setting the substandard has only voluntary acknowledgement whereas in the Reformed Polity the Churches are bound to each other in their confession. They are responsible for observing one another and making sure the soul of the Church is kept healthy as they have the divine right and responsibility for each other. In the Congregational setting they can only make recommendations from congregation to congregation. They depend upon a unity whereas the Reformed depend upon a union that promotes unity. Am I getting this correct?



Well noted, Randy. The authority of the confession is only as strong as the authority which imposes it.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> And before anybody jumps on me for saying this, remember that only the Scriptures are infallible.



Where does one begin with a statement like this? First, it is your statement, not Scripture's, yet you seem to have presented it as infallible truth to be believed, which would be self-refuting. Secondly, it is a false statement. God, the Author of Scripture, is infallible, and is the source of the Bible's infallibility. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is infallible, and it is only on the basis of His infallibility that the truth we believe can be regarded as infallible. Thirdly, truth is infallible though the person believing and professing it is fallible. Otherwise man could never make a single statement that is true. Otherwise it could not please God to save them that believe through the foolishness of preaching. Otherwise a Christian could not make his calling and election sure. Otherwise there could not be translations of holy Scripture. Otherwise we should not have confessions in the first place.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And before anybody jumps on me for saying this, remember that only the Scriptures are infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does one begin with a statement like this? First, it is your statement, not Scripture's, yet you seem to have presented it as infallible truth to be believed, which would be self-refuting. Secondly, it is a false statement. God, the Author of Scripture, is infallible, and is the source of the Bible's infallibility. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is infallible, and it is only on the basis of His infallibility that the truth we believe can be regarded as infallible. Thirdly, truth is infallible though the person believing and professing it is fallible. Otherwise man could never make a single statement that is true. Otherwise it could not please God to save them that believe through the foolishness of preaching. Otherwise a Christian could not make his calling and election sure. Otherwise there could not be translations of holy Scripture. Otherwise we should not have confessions in the first place.
Click to expand...


This response entirely misses the point I was attempting to make. May I suggest a better place to begin is with a more careful reading of the relevant portion of the original post to which I was replying together with my entire reply, thus: 



timmopussycat said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admire a thirteen-year-old's zeal to instruct a PhD in astrophysics on the finer points of his science, in a comedic sort of way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Westminster divines were learned in the Scriptures, theology, philosophy, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Patristics, Logic, Rhetoric, classical literature, and were refined by the fires of persecution to prepare them to write a Confession of Faith. They exceled modern men in piety, wisdom, rationality, preaching, respect of previous theologians, knowledge of contemporary opponents, and a host of other topics.
> 
> The least of these men is better than our best. We are a pool of amateurs seeking to correct an august body of learned and pious divines.
> 
> There's a technical term for this sort of attitude: laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's a technical term for presuming that since the WD's were so learned in so many things that their formulations, more than adequate for their day, must be in no need of refinement to face later developments and decays in Christian thinking: practical heresy. And before anybody jumps on me for saying this, remember that only the Scriptures are infallible.
> 
> The rules of logic are still taught in some places today and any 13 year old could (hypothetically) show that WA made errors at one or more points by demonstrating that given WCF WSC or WLC assertions are neither direct scriptural statement nor derived by good and necessary consequence from the same. And what will be at issue in the discussions is not the age of the teacher but the accuracy of his logic.
Click to expand...


The poster to whom I had replied (and BTW, may I recommend quoting ALL the salient part of posts one replies to) rejected any attempt by moderns to correct the Westminster Divines as "laughable". It was that statement that I called a practical heresy, since it effectively presumes that the WD's were infallible. My following comment, which you quoted, was intended to ward off challenges to my claim of practical heresy by pointing out that since only God, the author of Scripture is infallible, only Scripture is allowed by Christian theology (not to mention the WCF itself) to be defined as infallible. unlike the work of the fallible Westminster Divines. I was not saying anything about the fallibility or otherwise of my own statements whatsoever. Nor was I saying anything about whether the Westminster documents should or could be revised to produce a more biblical result. I was simply challenging the a priori rejection of the possibility that the Westminster documents could ever need such revision.

My apologies for confusing you. I hope nobody else shared the same confusion.


----------



## JML

I am not opposed to the idea of a new confession. However, in saying that, my concern would be that it would be the first step down the slippery slope that modern Bible translations have gone down (I am also not opposed to modern Bible translations, in fact I use one). Instead of having a single new confession, there would be 50 new confessions serving a specific niche market. For Presbyterians, each denomination would want their own if the changes to the first one were not exactly what they wanted. For independent Baptists, well, each congregation might want their own. Then, the thing that brought unity would instead be the thing that created more division.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> My following comment, which you quoted, was intended to ward off challenges to my claim of practical heresy by pointing out that since only God, the author of Scripture is infallible, only Scripture is allowed by Christian theology (not to mention the WCF itself) to be defined as infallible.



Thankyou for clarifying; it is an improvement on your original statement, but it is still self-refuting, taking into account what you are trying to say in the context. Your statement is not Scripture. Your statement therefore suffers from the same defects you claim for the Westminster Confession. Yet you expect us to receive your statement as authoritative in the issue under discussion. I suggest that the Westminster Confession is a far safer guide in these matters, having been formulated with much more spiritual care and precision. It is epistemically self-consistent as it teaches that fallible men may come to be assured of infallible truth. I hope that you might see this also.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> My following comment, which you quoted, was intended to ward off challenges to my claim of practical heresy by pointing out that since only God, the author of Scripture is infallible, only Scripture is allowed by Christian theology (not to mention the WCF itself) to be defined as infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for clarifying; it is an improvement on your original statement, but it is still self-refuting, taking into account what you are trying to say in the context. Your statement is not Scripture. Your statement therefore suffers from the same defects you claim for the Westminster Confession. Yet you expect us to receive your statement as authoritative in the issue under discussion. I suggest that the Westminster Confession is a far safer guide in these matters, having been formulated with much more spiritual care and precision. It is epistemically self-consistent as it teaches that fallible men may come to be assured of infallible truth. I hope that you might see this also.
Click to expand...


You appear to be still missing the point. I repeat that I never said or intended any to assume that my statement charging the original poster with elevating the WCF to the level of infallibility was itself,_ infallible_: instead I provided a _reason_ why I believed my statement to be _correct_. My reason was that only Scripture is infallible. If my reason be true (and it is a fundamental principle of this board that only Scripture is infallible) it should be received as such leaving only my former statement (that the original poster had elevated the WCF to infallibility) as the one place where I might with propriety be challenged. A demonstration that the original poster's approach does not practically elevate the WCF to the level of infallibility would seem to be the subject of any disagreement here. But this is not what you appear to be doing. You seem to persist in charging me with something I did not intend despite my denial of the attributed intention.

I agree with you that the WCF is epistemmically self-consistent in that it teaches that fallible men may come to be assured of infallible truth, but can we automatically define that "infallible truth" as "every single detail of the Confession" which is the point at issue if it is right a priori to reject all challenges to the Confession? It seems to me the Confession itself is careful not to go so far when in in ch. 18:1, 2 it limits the infallible assurance under discussion to "being in a state of grace" and being "in the hope of the glory of God." And the primary doctrine mentioned in the chapter is "the promises of salvation" as the objective basis for this assurance. The Confession itself is not mentioned in this chapter but, since it is a human produced document, it _is _mentioned by implication in ch. 1 10's "all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men" which must be subject to and examined by "the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." And since the Confession is, by definition, a human statement, it, like any human statement is fallible i.e. potentially capable of error. But just because a human statement is potentially capable of error does not mean that it actually errs in any particular. 

And I will agree with anybody that the Confession rightly understood will and has survived thousands if not tens of thousands of attempts to prove that it is false to the Bible. Those who wrote it wrote well and the vast majority of challenges to it do not survive examination. But given WCF 1:10, an a priori rejection of all challenges to the Confession's biblical accuracy has the end result of putting the Confession into the place that 1:10 reserves for Scripture alone. Now if any think this last statement is in error, please note that I am not claiming infallibility for it: I am putting it forward as a proposition for discussion.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> But given WCF 1:10, an a priori rejection of all challenges to the Confession's biblical accuracy has the end result of putting the Confession into the place that 1:10 reserves for Scripture alone. Now if any think this last statement is in error, please note that I am not claiming infallibility for it: I am putting it forward as a proposition for discussion.



I don't see where any person has raised the Confession to a point where it is beyond testing. When people say that it is not in need of revision one might assume that they have tested it and found it adequate for the purposes which a Confession serves. Fallibility means liability to err; it does not mean there is error. One would only revise a Confession where it is proven to be in error. Its fallibility does not prove that it has in fact erred. Westminster Confession 31 teaches liability to error does not cancel the lawful authority of councils whose determinations are "consonant to the Word of God." At the point the church has received a Confession it has judged it to be consonant to the Word of God.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But given WCF 1:10, an a priori rejection of all challenges to the Confession's biblical accuracy has the end result of putting the Confession into the place that 1:10 reserves for Scripture alone. Now if any think this last statement is in error, please note that I am not claiming infallibility for it: I am putting it forward as a proposition for discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where any person has raised the Confession to a point where it is beyond testing.
Click to expand...


The poster of post 76, by dismissing all modern possibilities of revising the Westminster documents as "laughable", appears, in effect, to do just that. And that is why I made my first reply on this theme.


----------

