# Should the confessions be revised to forbid female pastors?



## elnwood

We've had a number of posts recently about the difference between different Presbyterian denominations. A lot of the differences, historically and at present, have to do with whether women can be deacons or elders, whether RE or TE.

Female pastors are the reason that the CRC was booted from NAPARC, and presumably the reason the EPC is not a part of NAPARC. The PCA formed in part because of opposition to female elders.

And while each denomination's Book of Church Order states their position on ordaining women, the historical Reformed confessions are completely silent on it.

One reason I bring it up is that I know people in both the PCUSA and CRC who can fully subscribe to their historical confessions, and yet support female elders.

One of the purposes of the Confessions historically has been to stop the spread of false doctrine. In their time, they were written against Roman Catholicism and the Anabaptists, and they served their purpose with regard to those errors. Those errors did not creep into the churches.

Yet, with respect to the contemporary issue of female elders, the confessions haven't been effective. Liberalism crept into the churches, and many of the present confessionally Reformed denominations were created out of denominations that fell into liberalism. Perhaps if the confessions had originally stated that females were excluded from eldership, it would have helped prevent liberalism from entering into the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed denominations.

In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention, recognizing the need to continually update their confession of faith to prevent doctrinal error, revised the Baptist Faith and Message to state that only men shall be pastors.

Do you think the Westminster Standards, London Baptist, and the Three Forms of Unity should also be revised?


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt

I don't think so. Scripture is pretty clear-cut on the role of women in relation to church offices, plus the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 has it covered (though the wording is easy to miss):



LBC 1689: 26.9 said:


> The way appointed by Christ for calling any person qualified and gifted by the Holy Spirit for the office of bishop or elder, is that *he* is to be chosen by the communal vote of the church itself. *He* shall be solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with the laying on of hands by the elders of the church (if there are any previously appointed bishops or elders). Similarly, a deacon is also to be chosen by vote of the church and set apart by prayer, with the laying on of hands.



I can't speak to the nature of the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards, but there's at least one confession that deals with the specifics of the subject at hand.

EDIT: I decided, for the purposes of thoroughness, to check the other two confessions you mentioned. I had just checked the Westminster Confession of Faith at the time of this edit. It is silent on the matter. Checking the Three Forms of Unity now.

EDIT 2: Covered in Articles 30 and 31 of the Belgic Confession:



Article 30 said:


> ]We believe that this true church must be governed by that spiritual policy which our Lord hath taught us in His Word, namely, that there must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer the sacraments; also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, form the council of the church; that by these means the true religion may be preserved and the true doctrine everywhere propagated, likewise transgressors punished and restrained by spiritual means; also that the poor and distressed may be relieved and comforted, according to their necessities. By these means everything will be carried on in the church with good order and decency, when *faithful men* are chosen according to the rule prescribed by St. Paul in his epistle to Timothy.





Article 31 said:


> We believe that the ministers of God’s Word, and the elders and deacons, ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teacheth.* Therefore every one must take heed not to intrude himself by indecent means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him, that he may have testimony of his calling and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord. *
> 
> As for the ministers of God’s Word, they have equally the same power and authority wheresoever they are, as they are all ministers of Christ, the only universal Bishop and the only Head of the church. Moreover, that this holy ordinance of God may not be violated or slighted, we say that every one ought to esteem the ministers of God’s Word and the elders of the church very highly for their work’s sake, and be at peace with them without murmuring, strife, or contention, as much as possible.



Hope all of this helps.

EDIT 3 (Last one...I promise): I did not see you mention Westminster Standards (thought I read Westminster Confession), so I checked the catechisms and the order of worship as well. They too were silent.


----------



## Herald

I am not in favor of ammending the 1689 LBC, nor do I want my Presbyterian brethren to amend the WCF. While the Confessions are not the final word on Scripture, their longevity is a testament to their sound theology that has helped keep both Baptists and Presbyterians from wholesale error.

Instead of ammending the confessions I am in favor of formal position statements; either by local churches, associations, or presbyteries. These papers can be just as definitive while maintaining the integrity of the Confessions. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Scott1

Comments below, blessings.



elnwood said:


> We've had a number of posts recently about the difference between different Presbyterian denominations. A lot of the differences, historically and at present, have to do with whether women can be deacons or elders, whether RE or TE.
> 
> There is not one biblical reformed denomination that ordains women as elders. Nor was this done historically.
> 
> Female pastors are the reason that the CRC was booted from NAPARC, and presumably the reason the EPC is not a part of NAPARC. The PCA formed in part because of opposition to female elders.
> 
> In the case of the former, we might say the material cause- but the formal cause goes much deeper, as the trajectory of the communion since then indicates. It was (is) really about the authority of Scripture (versus the vain imaginations of men).
> 
> More reasons than the one you state with the latter.
> 
> The formal cause of the PCA (and OPC) leaving was the abandonment of the authority of Scripture, with many things manifesting that to the point the mainline denomination lost the marks of a 'true church.' Plain and simple. It was necessary to "continue" a true presbyterian church from the corrupted one that the mainline had become.
> 
> And while each denomination's Book of Church Order states their position on ordaining women, the historical Reformed confessions are completely silent on it.
> 
> One reason I bring it up is that I know people in both the PCUSA and CRC who can fully subscribe to their historical confessions, and yet support female elders.
> 
> Not quite. If you look at the Westminster Standards (not including the Directory of Worship) there is implicit male authoritative leadership, even going to the pattern in creation.
> 
> One of the purposes of the Confessions historically has been to stop the spread of false doctrine. In their time, they were written against Roman Catholicism and the Anabaptists, and they served their purpose with regard to those errors. Those errors did not creep into the churches.
> 
> That's one way to look at it. Also, it is a positive summary of some of what the Scriptures contain as doctrine. It was written to unite the church in its confession of these truths, and so hold it accountable.
> 
> Yet, with respect to the contemporary issue of female elders, the confessions haven't been effective. Liberalism crept into the churches, and many of the present confessionally Reformed denominations were created out of denominations that fell into liberalism. Perhaps if the confessions had originally stated that females were excluded from eldership, it would have helped prevent liberalism from entering into the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed denominations.
> 
> Liberalism is when man leaves the authority of Scripture, and faithful summaries of it, like the Confessions.
> 
> It simply ignores or rationalizes not following either.
> 
> It would have no effect if the Confession said explicitly men are to be ordained to the office of the church.
> 
> Liberalism would ignore it, decline its discipline, rewrite it (as the PCUSA is doing) after confusing it first.
> 
> In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention, recognizing the need to continually update their confession of faith to prevent doctrinal error, revised the Baptist Faith and Message to state that only men shall be pastors.
> 
> Do you think the Westminster Standards, London Baptist, and the Three Forms of Unity should also be revised?


 The Westminster Standards are not perfect in the sense of Scripture. Yet they are the best summary of the doctrine of Scripture mankind has ever produced.

The generation that produced them were Providentially guided and focused on determining the 'true' religion against a backdrop of persecution and death by a wide counsel.

It's hard to know one's times, but it doesn't seem we have anything like that today.

It seems our generation is more characterized by decline and every changing, prideful factions of those who would be theologians.

More characterized by minimizing God's "essential" truth, rather than expanding it, and being bound by it.


----------



## py3ak

elnwood said:


> Yet, with respect to the contemporary issue of female elders, the confessions haven't been effective. Liberalism crept into the churches, and many of the present confessionally Reformed denominations were created out of denominations that fell into liberalism. Perhaps if the confessions had originally stated that females were excluded from eldership, it would have helped prevent liberalism from entering into the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed denominations.



I don't believe the ordination of women was widely contemplated when liberalism began its encroachments. When people will lie about their beliefs, any document, no matter how thorough, is an inadequate preservative.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Joshua said:


> Nope.


 
Ditto.


----------



## TomVols

Joshua said:


> Nope.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Pilgrim

py3ak said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, with respect to the contemporary issue of female elders, the confessions haven't been effective. Liberalism crept into the churches, and many of the present confessionally Reformed denominations were created out of denominations that fell into liberalism. Perhaps if the confessions had originally stated that females were excluded from eldership, it would have helped prevent liberalism from entering into the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the ordination of women was widely contemplated when liberalism began its encroachments. When people will lie about their beliefs, any document, no matter how thorough, is an inadequate preservative.
Click to expand...

 
Well stated, particularly when they are allowed to lie about their beliefs when it's otherwise clear that they hold to beliefs that are inimical to whatever confession they formally subscribe to. That was the pattern in 20th Century mainline Presbyterian and Reformed churches. This also went on in the Southern Baptist Convention in the mid 20th Century. Southern Seminary was reformed and liberalism rooted out because Dr. Mohler began holding professors feet to the fire with regard to really affirming the Abstract of Principles, the doctrinal standard of the seminary. In the past they still had to sign it annually but it was just a formality.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Scott1 said:


> There is not one biblical reformed denomination that ordains women as elders. Nor was this done historically.



I was quite surprised to see a PCA church with a woman "pastor" - here. 
At least, I am assuming this is a PCA church (as it is listed as such on the PCA website - and I know from personal experience that they were about fifteen years ago); however, the church says: "We have a relationship of mutual accountability and support and are connected to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)." - whatever that "connected to" means. Also, this pastor is not listed as an elder, so I'm not sure what to take from all of this. Any thoughts?


----------



## Mushroom

> Well stated, particularly when they are allowed to lie about their beliefs when it's otherwise clear that they hold to beliefs that are inimical to whatever confession they formally subscribe to. That was the pattern in 20th Century mainline Presbyterian and Reformed churches.


Which is a tendency I saw prevalent among my father's peers, a ruling elder in the PCUSA. He never read the standards, but was practiced enough at making vows to things he neither understood or had any intention of keeping that there was no compunction against doing so present with him. I see some of that even in my own denom, the PCA, and it grieves me. RE's nominated and installed simply due to their professional standing or monetary wealth is a disgrace. I could rattle off a long list of such Officers in the PCA, most who have since left to devolve into other pursuits, but a few who remain. I'd rather have a wise janitor for a RE than a jaded professional.


----------



## elnwood

Scott1 said:


> There is not one biblical reformed denomination that ordains women as elders. Nor was this done historically.



So the EPC is not a biblical reformed denomination? I thought it was, considering that there are a number on PB who are EPC (some even ordained?)

Also, both Westminster Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary have had professors who supported female pastors. I assume they were Reformed and orthodox otherwise. Independent seminaries, of course, do not have a BCO to uphold.


----------



## Mushroom

> We officially organized as a church in the summer of 1993. Community surveys and studies provided us with a sense of the needs, and the PCA and Calvary Church (Willow Grove, Pennsylvania) provided generous start-up funding.





> We have a relationship of mutual accountability and support and are connected to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).


Wow! And Wow!

Well, there ya go! What's the deal with this kind of facetiousness?


----------



## Steve Curtis

elnwood said:


> So the EPC is not a biblical reformed denomination?



There are certainly local churches in the EPC that are biblical and Reformed. I think that it is fair to say that anytime we try to make general declarations encompassing whole denominations, we run the risk of unduly painting some with inappropriately broad strokes.


----------



## elnwood

kainos01 said:


> I was quite surprised to see a PCA church with a woman "pastor" - here.



I bet she's not ordained as a TE or RE, so is flying beneath the radar like the female deacons throughout the PCA are.


----------



## Steve Curtis

elnwood said:


> I bet she's not ordained as a TE or RE, so is flying beneath the radar like the female deacons throughout the PCA are



This is likely, as this same PCA church has a number of "deaconesses."


----------



## Notthemama1984

elnwood said:


> So the EPC is not a biblical reformed denomination?



Scott will always answer that the EPC is not a biblical reformed denomination. Whenever given the opportunity, he paints with broadstrokes.


----------



## jfschultz

elnwood said:


> In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention, recognizing the need to continually update their confession of faith to prevent doctrinal error, revised the Baptist Faith and Message to state that only men shall be pastors.



But there is also a danger here. This same revision of the Baptist Faith and Message included a reversal of their position on the Fourth Commandment!


----------



## Pilgrim

jfschultz said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention, recognizing the need to continually update their confession of faith to prevent doctrinal error, revised the Baptist Faith and Message to state that only men shall be pastors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there is also a danger here. This same revision of the Baptist Faith and Message included a reversal of their position on the Fourth Commandment!
Click to expand...


That's correct, no doubt a reflection of the influence of dispensational theology and a reflection of what most of the churches have actually believed and practiced for the past few decades. Dispensationalism is on the wane in the SBC, but even with the revival of Calvinism, there appears to be very little if no sentiment toward returning to the old teaching on the Lord's Day. 

I doubt there was any significant opposition to the change on the Lord's Day. (On the other hand, there are other teachings in the BF&M such as the terms of communion that are far too hot to handle.) With the exception of churches that are dually affiliated with ARBCA, I hardly know of any Southern Baptist pastors (Calvinistic or non) who hold to the Puritan view of the Sabbath. This includes those who are otherwise more or less covenantal and who largely identify with the 1689, similar to the widespread taking of exceptions on the 4th commandment in the PCA. Occasionally you will find some senior saints in the SBC and similar churches who are still inclined toward that view. 

If I recall correctly, the teaching on gender roles was added in 1998 while the article on Scripture was changed in 2000 (along with the Lord's Day) to remove neo-orthodox teaching. The former was the main objective. I would imagine that many never even noticed the change with regard to the Lord's Day unless they compared the whole document with the older versions.

Although I understand he agrees with the current BF&M teaching on the Lord's Day, I was interested and glad to see Dr. Mohler's teaching on the 2nd Commandment and the prohibition of images in his book on the 10 commandments.


----------



## elnwood

Pilgrim said:


> I doubt there was any significant opposition to the change on the Lord's Day. (On the other hand, there are other teachings in the BF&M such as the terms of communion that are far too hot to handle.) With the exception of churches that are dually affiliated with ARBCA, I hardly know of any Southern Baptist pastors (Calvinistic or non) who hold to the Puritan view of the Sabbath. This includes those who are otherwise more or less covenantal and who largely identify with the 1689, similar to the widespread taking of exceptions on the 4th commandment in the PCA. Occasionally you will find some senior saints in the SBC and similar churches who are still inclined toward that view.



Most of you treat the confessions as something that should rarely or never be revised: it's importance is that it hasn't changed that much, and to change it is to imply that it is deficient in some way, or that the unchanging truths that it represents has somehow been changed.

I tend to think that the confessions should be pragmatic. They are first and foremost the doctrinal standard of the churches. I think one purpose is to prevent doctrinal error, and to that end I would prefer the confessions to be updated periodically, similar to the Baptist Faith and Message.

I also think that the confessions ought to represent the doctrinal standard of the church, and I think it's rather silly to hold up a doctrinal standard that the vast majority of elders in the PCA take exceptions to, especially with regard to the Sabbath. I think the PCA either needs to enforce the WCF on the Sabbath (realistically not going to happen) or revise the confession to reflect the current understanding of the Lord's Day within the PCA, similar to how the SBC revised the BF&M. The latter, I think, is preferable to allowing widespread exceptions.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt there was any significant opposition to the change on the Lord's Day. (On the other hand, there are other teachings in the BF&M such as the terms of communion that are far too hot to handle.) With the exception of churches that are dually affiliated with ARBCA, I hardly know of any Southern Baptist pastors (Calvinistic or non) who hold to the Puritan view of the Sabbath. This includes those who are otherwise more or less covenantal and who largely identify with the 1689, similar to the widespread taking of exceptions on the 4th commandment in the PCA. Occasionally you will find some senior saints in the SBC and similar churches who are still inclined toward that view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you treat the confessions as something that should rarely or never be revised: it's importance is that it hasn't changed that much, and to change it is to imply that it is deficient in some way, or that the unchanging truths that it represents has somehow been changed.
> 
> I tend to think that the confessions should be pragmatic. They are first and foremost the doctrinal standard of the churches. I think one purpose is to prevent doctrinal error, and to that end I would prefer the confessions to be updated periodically, similar to the Baptist Faith and Message.
> 
> I also think that the confessions ought to represent the doctrinal standard of the church, and I think it's rather silly to hold up a doctrinal standard that the vast majority of elders in the PCA take exceptions to, especially with regard to the Sabbath. I think the PCA either needs to enforce the WCF on the Sabbath (realistically not going to happen) or revise the confession to reflect the current understanding of the Lord's Day within the PCA, similar to how the SBC revised the BF&M. The latter, I think, is preferable to allowing widespread exceptions.
Click to expand...


Don,

I think you have a point with the implication of allowing widespread exceptions. If a large majority end up taking exceptions to a certain teaching, it practically ends up being an unwritten confessional revision. Right or wrong, as I understand it exceptions are generally allowed if they are not determined to be inimical to the "system of doctrine" taught in the standards. There's a significant difference between system subscription and strict subscription. There are a good many strict subscriptionists in the PCA, but officially the position is system subscription. There are other denominations that adhere more closely to the confessions, like the OPC. I'm not sure if exceptions are even allowed in some of the Dutch and continental Reformed churches. 

The problem WRT revising the Sabbath teaching in the PCA's standards is that it could very well split the church. There are a great many churches and elders that do not take exception to the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the 4th Commandment and who would strongly oppose revising the confessional teaching on the 4th Commandment. 

The BF&M is only updated when there is some kind of crisis, not when there is merely some change in opinion about its teaching, even if the disagreement is widespread. In 1925 the crisis was the anti-supernaturalism of the modernists. In 1963 it was the authority of the Scriptures, although the statement "[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT][SIZE=-1]The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" was problematic to say the least. In 1998 the article on the family was inserted as a response to feminism and egalitarianism. In 2000 it basically codified the conservatives view on Scripture and revised the essentially neo-orthodox language on Scripture.[/SIZE][/FONT] Because of the way that the Trustee system works, most of the liberals in the seminaries had left or had been forced out by 2000 anyway.

The difference between the SBC and the PCA on the Lord's Day is that the vast majority in the Southern Baptist Convention, probably well over 90%, reject sabbatarianism, especially the idea of "_[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT][SIZE=-1]refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, works of necessity and mercy only excepted[/SIZE][/FONT]_." Many of them don't even understand what the teaching on the Lord's Day that is reflected in most historic Baptist confessions means. A good many that I've talked think that keeping the Sabbath means nothing more than not neglecting assembling together and aren't even interested in discussing the historic teaching. That's why the article on the Lord's Day was changed. (There was probably already widespread disagreement with it in 1963.) Those few that do uphold the traditional teaching on the 4th Commandment are often not very engaged in convention life anyway. Some just stay in because they want to have some influence (or for some other reason) but often focus more on some other network or group they are also affiliated with, whether formally or not. 

Basically, all it takes to remain SBC is to send some money to the convention. Given the polity of the SBC, the BF&M is not binding on any of the churches unless the church decides to adopt it individually. There are a good many churches who still officially subscribe to the 1963 edition. Others subscribe to the New Hampshire Confession, the 1689, the Abstract of Principles or some other confession. 

The BF&M is binding with regard to the employees of the various agencies like missionaries and seminary professors. In that sense it is being used more like a confession than the BF&M ever was in the past. But even then, many if not most will dissent on things like the BF&M's teaching that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. The main issue with the Conservative Resurgence was what was being taught in the seminaries and the actions and positions of some agencies that no longer exist. Although many of the churches then and now may not really adhere to sola scriptura and inerrancy in practice (or perhaps more accurately, often don't understand the implications of it) most of them did (and do) at least affirm it in theory. 

State conventions and the SBC as a whole will sometimes separate from churches that have female pastors or that have homosexuals in leadership, particularly those whose cases become generally known. The SBC isn't hierarchical and isn't connectional, with the churches being considered autonomous. But the conventions and associations are considered to be autonomous as well and as such have the prerogative to determine the appropriate parameters for membership. That being said, that is very rarely done today with established churches with the exception of female pastors and affirmation or tolerance of homosexual practice. I know of a Federal Vision church that was formerly Baptist and remains in the SBC due to some misguided ecumenical sentiment. After the better part of a decade they haven't been kicked out or left the convention that I'm aware of. It's in what would be considered "pioneer" territory i.e. outside of the Southeast or the old Southwest, so I guess they're more tolerant and if the church doesn't participate in associational life, many probably don't know about its defection from Baptist principles.


----------



## Scott1

Pilgrim said:


> The problem WRT revising the Sabbath teaching in the PCA is that it could very well split the church. There are a great many churches and elders that do not take exception to the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the 4th Commandment.



The denomination requires a 3/4 vote by General Assembly, a 3/4 vote of all presbyteries, and a 3/4 vote by the next General Assembly to amend the Westminster Standards.

The 4th commandment/sabbath/Lord's Day is part and parcel of the moral law, ten commandments and has been so recognized by historic presbyterianism.

I'm confident that even allowing for some recreation on the sabbath, there is virtually no sentiment to change the church's confessed doctrine on anything related to it in the denomination.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It is PCA. This is shades of Redeemer NY, except with the title of pastor. Note the deacons/deaconesses as well. They are giving titles which in the normal Presbyterian world are for ordained office, to non ordained folks (including women). 


kainos01 said:


> I was quite surprised to see a PCA church with a woman "pastor" - here. At least, I am assuming this is a PCA church (as it is listed as such on the PCA website - and I know from personal experience that they were about fifteen years ago); however, the church says: "We have a relationship of mutual accountability and support and are connected to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)." - whatever that "connected to" means. Also, this pastor is not listed as an elder, so I'm not sure what to take from all of this. Any thoughts?


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott1 said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem WRT revising the Sabbath teaching in the PCA is that it could very well split the church. There are a great many churches and elders that do not take exception to the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the 4th Commandment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The denomination requires a 3/4 vote by General Assembly, a 3/4 vote of all presbyteries, and a 3/4 vote by the next General Assembly to amend the Westminster Standards.
> 
> The 4th commandment/sabbath/Lord's Day is part and parcel of the moral law, ten commandments and has been so recognized by historic presbyterianism.
> 
> I'm confident that even allowing for some recreation on the sabbath, there is virtually no sentiment to change the church's confessed doctrine on anything related to it in the denomination.
Click to expand...


With that threshold, I agree that there is no chance of revision of the confessional position on the 4th Commandment in the near future. 

However, would your definition of "some recreation" on the sabbath include things like going out to eat following morning worship or working a regular job on the Lord's Day that has no relation to deeds of mercy and necessity? In my experience, those kinds of things are widespread in the PCA, although there may be some regional differences and differences from presbytery to presbytery in that regard. You are right that there likely is not much sentiment to see the confession's teaching changed here, but I would imagine that in part that is because the confessional teaching is not enforced and the exceptions are so widespread. Unlike paedocommunion, at least in many cases there doesn't seem to be any limitation on an elder teaching his unconfessional views on the 4th Commandment, or the 2nd Commandment for that matter. It seems that many presbyteries do not consider those exceptions to be inimical to the system of doctrine.


----------



## Rich Koster

herald said:


> i am not in favor of ammending the 1689 lbc, nor do i want my presbyterian brethren to amend the wcf. While the confessions are not the final word on scripture, their longevity is a testament to their sound theology that has helped keep both baptists and presbyterians from wholesale error.
> 
> Instead of ammending the confessions i am in favor of formal position statements; either by local churches, associations, or presbyteries. These papers can be just as definitive while maintaining the integrity of the confessions.
> 
> Sent from my most excellent motorola atrix.



agreed !!!


----------



## JM

Yes.


----------



## Edward

elnwood said:


> Do you think the Westminster Standards, London Baptist, and the Three Forms of Unity should also be revised?



No. In loose subscription denominations, a change to the Confession won't do much good anyway, and a strict subscription denomination that 'interprets' the scriptures to allow ordination of female elders can interpret its way around the Confession.


----------

