# What Confession do you hold to?



## AV1611

What Confessional documents do you hold to? Just interested as to which of the two is more generally held by PB members.


----------



## Dagmire

That Jesus is Lord and that he came to earth in the flesh.


----------



## Herald

Richard - this should be an anticlimatic poll. Since most members of the PB are Presbyterian the W.C.F. should carry the day.


----------



## Chris

The Job confession of 19:25.


----------



## Puritanhead

Well, you can tell a Presbyterian authored this poll, and not a Baptist.


----------



## larryjf

It would be interesting to see some others listed...

London Confession of 1689
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith
39 Articles
Heidelberg Catechism
Canons of Dort


----------



## Davidius

larryjf said:


> It would be interesting to see some others listed...
> 
> London Confession of 1689
> The Philadelphia Confession of Faith
> 39 Articles
> Heidelberg Catechism
> Canons of Dort



I was under the impression that the only confessions which would give someone eligibility to be a PB member were the WCF, LBCF, and Three Forms.


----------



## edb19

1. London Baptist Confession
2. Keach's Catechism
3. Westminster Larger Catechism


----------



## larryjf

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I was under the impression that the only confessions which would give someone eligibility to be a PB member were the WCF, LBCF, and Three Forms.



It's been a couple of years since i joined, i must have forgotten about the membership eligibility. Thanks for pointing that out.

P.S. the World Reformed Fellowship is constructing a new statement of faith for the modern era. Keep your eyes open for it!


----------



## Ivan

larryjf said:


> It would be interesting to see some others listed...
> 
> London Confession of 1689
> The Philadelphia Confession of Faith
> 39 Articles
> Heidelberg Catechism
> Canons of Dort



I hold to the LBCF, but I'd think that the Philadephia Confession would work. As I recall, it is very similar to the LBCF.


----------



## JM

Lbc 1646


----------



## LadyFlynt

Also need to specify WHICH WCF


----------



## bookslover

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Richard - this should be an anticlimatic poll. Since most members of the PB are Presbyterian the W.C.F. should carry the day.



...sez the gray-haired Baptist.


----------



## Herald

bookslover said:


> ...sez the gray-haired Baptist.



Richard - don't make me get my cane and give you another beat down.


----------



## Ravens

> Richard - don't make me get my cane and give you another beat down.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I thought there were only blue-haired "ladies"?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

LadyFlynt said:


> Also need to specify WHICH WCF


There is only one WCF. The others are CFs of the particular denominations that decided to change it!


----------



## bookslover

LadyFlynt said:


> I thought there were only blue-haired "ladies"?



I can't imagine you as a "blue-haired lady", LadyFlynt. I figure you're waaaay too young for that stuff.

I do remember there being actual blue-haired elderly ladies when I was a wee lad back in the late '50s and early '60s. I guess that trend has died away.


----------



## LadyFlynt

No, I don't think the trend has died away...look at Bill Brown!

You were a wee lad in the 50s and 60s??? Oh, thank you, you've made me feel so young!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

JM said:


> Lbc 1646


----------



## Herald

> No, I don't think the trend has died away...look at Bill Brown!



I do not have blue hair!  

....but Richard does...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

larryjf said:


> It would be interesting to see some others listed...
> 
> London Confession of 1689
> The Philadelphia Confession of Faith
> 39 Articles
> Heidelberg Catechism
> Canons of Dort



The Heidelberg and the Canons of Dort are subsumed under the Three forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession being the third).

It has been pointed out that the list is deficient. I would have preferred a multiple selection option because I confess both the WCF and the 3 Forms of Unity.

If one looks at the forum rules, it is easy to determine the Confessions that require no waiver. Here is the appropriate section:


> 2. Confessional Requirements:
> 
> a. The Puritan Board is subject to Christ's Church. The Puritanboard is owned by a Presbyterian subject to a local session. However, because the Puritanboard is moderated by both Presbyterians and Baptists, we endeavor to live in some level of harmony in edification and fellowship.
> 
> b. Confessional Subscription: Officially, the Puritanboard is governed by the Westminster Standards and will acquiesce to them in ultimate matters of any controversies on the Puritanboard. Some of our moderators are Baptist and hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF). Others hold to the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt).
> 
> c. Historic Creeds: All members of this board hold to the basic creeds of the church: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, and the Definitions of Chalcedon.
> 
> d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.
> 
> e. Under some circumstances, the Admins may approve an applicant who does not fully confess one of these historic Reformed confessions but whose soteriological and ecclesiological journey is taking them down that path. This has included some Lutherans, Episcopalians, and some independents in the process of Reforming.


I enjoy being an Admin of this board but one of the less enjoyable aspects is actually approving membership. In many ways it has been very revealing to me the spectrum of people that call themselves Reformed.

I can't really blame some people because I used to be pretty ignorant about what the term means but I benefitted from being in an orthodox body that constrained and restrained my thinking. I, nevertheless, had a very basic concept that being reformed meant understanding and embracing TULIP and little else.

Most people are familiar with the term "Calvinist cage stage". That is, there is a well known stage where people become convinced of TULIP and become somewhat obnoxious - asking people: "Are you semi-Pelagian or Calvinist?" and folks who can only talk about election and reprobation.

I actually think it's more of a "Reformed means TULIP" stage that some people that _call themselves_ Reformed either grow out of or they remain stilted within that development. To become Reformed, I have grown to understand, is to submit yourself to a Church and to _confess_ with the Christians of the ages a common confession that contends for truth and the unity of the faith.

People that stand apart from Confessions and proclaim themselves the infallible arbiter of the Scriptures true interpretation *are not Reformed* even if they've read Calvin's Insitutes and like what it has to say for the most part. To be Reformed is to be a _Christian_ with a _Reformed Confession_ and to submit to the authority of a *Church*.

Some people apply and they're just all over the map: "Hi, I like TULIP and I'm exploring paedocommunion and don't believe there are any Biblical grounds for divorce...." I recently got an application from a Southern Baptist pastoral intern who stated he subscribed to WCF. When I asked him how a Baptist pastor subscribed to the WCF, his response was: "Whatever Dude, what's the deal with your restrictions, I just wanted to post and have some fun...."

I'll be honest with you that I'm not terribly convinced that something great will come out of the Founder's movement unless they agree to and _find_ a decent Confession that they can unite around. It's not enough to read a few Spurgeon snippets, like the election dealie, and then "...have everyone do what seems right in their own TULIP eyes...."

Confessions don't replace Scripture but they provide a place for a common confession of what the Scriptures teach so you can guard yourself against all the quackery that passes for "Calvinism" these days.

In the end, nobody ever admits to being a heretic. They're just interpreting the Bible and what it says, right?


----------



## bookslover

LadyFlynt said:


> No, I don't think the trend has died away...look at Bill Brown!
> 
> You were a wee lad in the 50s and 60s??? Oh, thank you, you've made me feel so young!



Yes, Ma'am. Born November 5, 1952, the day after Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected to his first term as president. Harry S. Truman (the last sane Democrat) was a lame-duck president as of the day I was born. 

I'll hit double-nickels this year...


----------



## Herald

> Most people are familiar with the term "Calvinist cage stage". That is, there is a well known stage where people become convinced of TULIP and become somewhat obnoxious - asking people: "Are you semi-Pelagian or Calvinist?" and folks who can only talk about election and reprobation.
> 
> I actually think it's more of a "Reformed means TULIP" stage that some people that call themselves Reformed either grow out of or they remain stilted within that development. To become Reformed, I have grown to understand, is to submit yourself to a Church and to confess with the Christians of the ages a common confession that contends for truth and the unity of the faith.



Rich, you're describing the me of seven years ago. When I first embraced Calvinism that was all I could talk about. Every conversation found some way of brining election, predestination and TULIP into the discussion. Thank God I have moved from that (with still a long way to go).


----------



## bookslover

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I do not have blue hair!
> 
> ....but Richard does...



Ha! Not even close, William. _My_ hair is........................plaid.


----------



## Me Died Blue

to Rich's post.



SemperFideles said:


> I would have preferred a multiple selection option because I confess both the WCF and the 3 Forms of Unity.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

bookslover said:


> Yes, Ma'am. Born November 5, 1952, the day after Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected to his first term as president. Harry S. Truman (the last sane Democrat) was a lame-duck president as of the day I was born.
> 
> I'll hit double-nickels this year...


My brother will turn 55 this Juneteenth, and he's in the middle of the pack among the siblings; so everyone is feeling old.


----------



## satz

Regarding subscription to the confessions as a prerequisite for membership to the board;

To what extent are members allowed to take 'exceptions' to the confessions?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> Regarding subscription to the confessions as a prerequisite for membership to the board;
> 
> To what extent are members allowed to take 'exceptions' to the confessions?



To the extent that they reveal their exceptions to us so we can evaluate whether or not we want to allow them to post.

Some of those boundaries have been spelled out in the forum rules but usually when it's a tough call I'll start a Moderator thread and we'll discuss it.


----------



## InChains620

Myself and my church hold to the 1689 LBC.


----------



## Poimen

> It has been pointed out that the list is deficient. I would have preferred a multiple selection option because I confess both the WCF and the 3 Forms of Unity.



Mach niet Rich! You can't have both; we Dutchies don't mix our confessional 'blood'


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Poimen said:


> Mach niet Rich! You can't have both; we Dutchies don't mix our confessional 'blood'



Maybe the Dutch can't stomach both but it works for me!


----------



## Poimen

SemperFideles said:


> Maybe the Dutch can't stomach both but it works for me!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Jacobus Koelman (1632-1695), _The Duties of Parents_, p. 31:



> The catechisms composed by others have served me as aids and guides. The reason why in this process I do not follow so much the Heidelberg Catechism as I do the Westminster Shorter Catechism of England, Scotland, and Ireland is simply that the latter is in all respects superior. For why should we not honestly acknowledge such an obvious truth? It would be good if the church of The Netherlands would be willing to learn and take over a variety of things from the churches in England and Scotland, things which they formulated in their church order and other formularies more clearly in accordance with God's Word than our church has done.


----------



## Poimen

I probably should have noted that the above was a joke. I went to WSCAL after all: the most ecumenical school on the face of the planet (with many 'nasty' Lutherans and even some 'crazy' Baptists to boot!)


----------



## kvanlaan

> Mach niet Rich! You can't have both; we Dutchies don't mix our confessional 'blood'



Amen, Dominee Kok. Mar 'as it net kin sa as it moat, dan moat it mar sa as it kin'.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

kvanlaan said:


> Amen, Dominee Kok. Mar 'as it net kin sa as it moat, dan moat it mar sa as it kin'.



Hey! Enough with the freaky deeky Dutch!


----------



## Poimen

kvanlaan said:


> Amen, Dominee Kok. Mar 'as it net kin sa as it moat, dan moat it mar sa as it kin'.



Is that Fries? (sp.)

als het niet kan zoals het moet, dan moet het maar zoals het kan


----------



## kvanlaan

Yep, it's Fries. One of my Grandfather's favorites. Basically (and correct me if I'm a little off, Rev Kok), it is: If it won't work the way it should, let it work as it will. (So if the Three Forms isn't enough for some, it's OK to fudge a wee bit...)  

And easy there, Rich, I don't know that the USMC can handle the wrath of the freeky deeky Dutch! I've been watching that Boer War video that Dave Pell posted and my martial blood is up!


----------



## Poimen

Kevin:

No wonder I didn't understand your 'barbarian' speech!  

Honestly, I wouldn't know the correct translation since I know very little Dutch.  

In fact I googled your statement to find the Dutch equivalent.


----------



## smhbbag

> People that stand apart from Confessions and proclaim themselves the infallible arbiter of the Scriptures true interpretation are not Reformed even if they've read Calvin's Insitutes and like what it has to say for the most part. To be Reformed is to be a Christian with a Reformed Confession and to submit to the authority of a Church.



Is the LBCF a "Reformed" Confession? Obviously acceptable for board membership - but is it Reformed?


----------



## Me Died Blue

smhbbag said:


> Is the LBCF a "Reformed" Confession? Obviously acceptable for board membership - but is it Reformed?



Even recognizing that you're a member of a Baptist church mentioning this, let's not turn this thread into nothing more than an _umpteenth_ "Are Baptists 'Reformed'?" thread.


----------



## smhbbag

Oh I don't particularly care whether Baptists get to call themselves "Reformed" - just wanted a short answer from a Board leader. It's just a word, and I'll go along with anyone's definition of it without argument. It is certainly one of the more fruitless debate topics possible.



> let's not turn this thread into nothing more than an umpteenth "Are Baptists 'Reformed'?" thread.



I didn't bring the topic up.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeremy,

To answer your question:

Historically, Baptists are not Reformed, which is why Baptists referred to themselves as Particular Baptists and why they were not invited to participate in the Westminster Assembly.


----------



## bookslover

SemperFideles said:


> Jeremy,
> 
> To answer your question:
> 
> Historically, Baptists are not Reformed, which is why Baptists referred to themselves as Particular Baptists and why they were not invited to participate in the Westminster Assembly.



Actually, Rich, the reason Baptists were not invited to participate is that they refused to bring their fair share of the coffee and doughnuts. You can't properly write confessions and catechisms without massive amounts of coffee and doughnuts (especially glazed doughnuts [yum])...

The true secret of writing excellent confessions and catechisms - a perpetual sugar high during the process.


----------



## bookslover

By the way: has anyone besides me noticed the true balance of housepets in the Reformed world:

We have CATechisms to help explain and defend our DOGma...


----------



## Ivan

Poimen said:


> I probably should have noted that the above was a joke. I went to WSCAL after all: the most ecumenical school on the face of the planet (with many 'nasty' Lutherans and even some 'crazy' Baptists to boot!)



I didn't attend WSCAL.......


----------



## Ivan

bookslover said:


> Actually, Rich, the reason Baptists were not invited to participate is that they refused to bring their fair share of the coffee and doughnuts. You can't properly write confessions and catechisms without massive amounts of coffee and doughnuts (especially glazed doughnuts [yum])...
> 
> The true secret of writing excellent confessions and catechisms - a perpetual sugar high during the process.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

bookslover said:


> Actually, Rich, the reason Baptists were not invited to participate is that they refused to bring their fair share of the coffee and doughnuts. You can't properly write confessions and catechisms without massive amounts of coffee and doughnuts (especially glazed doughnuts [yum])...
> 
> The true secret of writing excellent confessions and catechisms - a perpetual sugar high during the process.


----------



## BertMulder

Poimen said:


> Mach niet Rich! You can't have both; we Dutchies don't mix our confessional 'blood'



Je bedoeld "mag niet"

(sorry to correct your dutch, but you were mixing in a German flair)


----------



## Poimen

BertMulder said:


> Je bedoeld "mag niet"
> 
> (sorry to correct your dutch, but you were mixing in a German flair)



No problem. I probably shouldn't write Dutch if I can't speak Dutch. I just happen to remember someone using that one on their dog...


----------



## AV1611

*Note:* My purpose in this poll was to see of those who adhere to Covenant Theology whether more are of the Dutch Reformed variety (Three Forms) or Scottish and English Presbyterianism (Westminster Standards). This also explains why I did not want a multiple choice because whilst I understand those who affirm the one will affirm the other I wish to know which was your confessional foundation.




larryjf said:


> It would be interesting to see some others listed...
> 
> London Confession of 1689
> The Philadelphia Confession of Faith
> 39 Articles
> Heidelberg Catechism
> Canons of Dort



Heidelberg and Dordt are included in the Three Forms of Unity. What I said above explains why I did not include the others.


----------



## AV1611

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Richard - this should be an anticlimatic poll. Since most members of the PB are Presbyterian the W.C.F. should carry the day.



I know but I am still interested


----------



## KMK

AV1611 said:


> *Note:* My purpose in this poll was to see of those who adhere to Covenant Theology whether more are of the *Dutch Reformed variety (Three Forms)* or Scottish and English Presbyterianism (Westminster Standards). This also explains why I did not want a multiple choice because whilst I understand those who affirm the one will affirm the other I wish to know which was your confessional foundation.



Do the Dutch Reformed still hold to the Three Forms?


----------



## Poimen

KMK said:


> Do the Dutch Reformed still hold to the Three Forms?



Yes.


----------



## BertMulder

The churches united under "samen op weg" (together on the way), now known as the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland, do not. Which are the Netherlands Reformed Church (Nederlands Hervormde Kerk), the Reformed Church (Gereformeeerde Kerk), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Evangelisch-Lutherse Kerk).


----------



## Guido's Brother

BertMulder said:


> The churches united under "samen op weg" (together on the way), now known as the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland, do not. Which are the Netherlands Reformed Church (Nederlands Hervormde Kerk), the Reformed Church (Gereformeeerde Kerk), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Evangelisch-Lutherse Kerk).



According to this website, the PKN still technically holds to the TFU. Whether they actually do in practice is another matter altogether.


----------



## BertMulder

I guess the right word is "technically".

This is article 1 of their church order:



> Artikel I
> 
> 
> De Protestantse Kerk in Nederland is overeenkomstig haar belijden gestalte van de ene heilige apostolische en katholieke of algemene christelijke Kerk die zich, delend in de aan Israël geschonken verwachting, uitstrekt naar de komst van het Koninkrijk van God.
> Levend uit Gods genade in Jezus Christus vervult de kerk de opdracht van haar Heer om het woord te horen en te verkondigen.
> Betrokken in Gods toewending tot de wereld, belijdt de kerk in gehoorzaamheid aan de Heilige Schrift als enige bron en norm van de kerkelijke verkondiging en dienst, de drie-enige God, Vader, Zoon en Heilige Geest.
> Het belijden van de kerk geschiedt in gemeenschap met de belijdenis van het voorgeslacht, zoals die is verwoord in de Apostolische geloofsbelijdenis , de geloofsbelijdenis van Nicea en de geloofsbelijdenis van Athanasius - waardoor de kerk zich verbonden weet met de algemene christelijke Kerk-, in de Onveranderde Augsburgse confessie en de catechismus van Luther - waardoor de kerk zich verbonden weet met de lutherse traditie -, in de catechismus van Heidelberg, de catechismus van Genève en de Nederlandse geloofsbelijdenis met de Dordtse leerregels - waardoor de kerk zich verbonden weet met de gereformeerde traditie.
> De kerk erkent de betekenis van de theologische verklaring van Barmen voor het belijden in het heden. De kerk erkent met de Konkordie van Leuenberg dat de lutherse en gereformeerde tradities door een gemeenschappelijk verstaan van het Evangelie bijeenkomen.
> De kerk belijdt telkens opnieuw in haar vieren, spreken en handelen Jezus Christus als Heer en Verlosser van de wereld en roept daarmee op tot vernieuwing van het leven in cultuur, maatschappij en staat.
> De kerk getuigt voor mensen, machten en overheden van Gods beloften en geboden en zoekt daarbij de samenspraak met andere kerken.
> De kerk is geroepen gestalte te geven aan haar onopgeefbare verbondenheid met het volk Israël. Als Christus-belijdende geloofsgemeenschap zoekt zij het gesprek met Israël inzake het verstaan van de Heilige Schrift, in het bijzonder betreffende de komst van het Koninkrijk van God.
> Gezonden in de wereld en geroepen tot de bediening van de verzoening, getuigt de kerk in verkondiging en dienst aan alle mensen en aan alle volken van het heil in Jezus Christus.
> De kerk is bij haar getuigenis in woord en daad gehouden om zich te bewegen in de weg van haar belijden.
> De kerk en al haar leden zijn geroepen het belijden te toetsen bij het licht van de Heilige Schrift.
> De kerk weert wat haar belijden weerspreekt.


----------



## bookslover

Interestingly, some years ago the OPC explored the possibility of adding the Three Forms of Unity to the Westminster Standards as our confessional standards. After some investigation, the OPC's GA at the time decided to not add them. The reason? As it was expressed to me: "most layfolk in the OPC don't read the 3 standards we have now; it would be pointless to add 3 more."


----------



## KMK

Poimen said:


> Yes.



Isn't Robert Schuller 'Dutch Reformed'? Do you mean to tell me the Crystal Cathedral is a 5-pointer?


----------



## Pilgrim

KMK said:


> Isn't Robert Schuller 'Dutch Reformed'? Do you mean to tell me the Crystal Cathedral is a 5-pointer?



He is in the Reformed Church in America, which is historically Dutch Reformed, but it is one of the most liberal denominations in the country.


----------



## Pilgrim

larryjf said:


> It would be interesting to see some others listed...
> 
> London Confession of 1689
> The Philadelphia Confession of Faith
> 39 Articles
> Heidelberg Catechism
> Canons of Dort



The Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort, along with the Belgic Confession, comprise the Three Forms of Unity.


----------



## bookslover

Pilgrim said:


> He is in the Reformed Church in America, which is historically Dutch Reformed, but it is one of the most liberal denominations in the country.



...and Schuller is at the most liberal end of the most liberal denomination in the country.

(Actually, I thought the United Church of Christ was the most liberal.)


----------



## kvanlaan

> most layfolk in the OPC don't read the 3 standards we have now; it would be pointless to add 3 more



Ouch. That's a sad reality. I remember hearing though, that at (I think it was) Covenant Seminary (?) 25 years ago, the remedial bible test would be failed by 1/3 and passed by 2/3s. Now it is the other way around...


----------

