# Obstacles to Updating the Confession: Subtle Traditionalism



## JML (Nov 18, 2011)

Great article by Dr. Bob Gonzales on updating confessions:


Obstacles to Updating and Refining the 1689 Confession: Subtle Traditionalism | It Is Written


This is a part of a series on updating the 1689 Baptist confession and the obstacles that such an endeavor faces. The rest of the obstacles can also be found on his website:

drbobgonzales.com

So far the objections covered have been:

1) Strict Subscription
2) Subtle Traditionalism

He has also covered his reasons for why the 1689 should be updated which can be found on the website as well.


Do the confessions need updating? If so, what would be some obstacles to this? What are your thoughts?


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 18, 2011)

Updating the confession seems part and parcel of the principle of reformata semper reformanda. We are living in another age and the church has different opponents we must distinguish ourselves from. I believe the Reformers would have expected the church 500 years after their time to have updated their confession.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 19, 2011)

Confessions can be updated, like the American revision of the WCF. However, what was more common in the Protestant Church was the writing of new confessions. There's a reason why the continental reformers had not one, not two, but THREE forms of unity. Just as the Reformers did, we ought to write new confessions to address the issues of our time.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 19, 2011)

Hasn't the Baptist conferssion already been updated several times i.e. New Hampshire, BFM 1925, BFM 1963, And BFM 2000?


----------



## JP Wallace (Nov 19, 2011)

Bill the BFM are very different in many, many ways from the 1689 confession, for a start they are not explicitly covenantal, nor do they reflect the 1689 understanding of the sacraments etc. etc. In other words they are not, and are very far from being, updates, but rather omit, modify and replace much (and much that is of great importance) that is contained in the 1689.

Hampshire is very brief like a summary statement of faith, certainly not in the same 'league' as the 1689.

In comparison to all of these the 1689 is much more robustly connected to the Reformed tradition ,and more full in its statements of faith.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 19, 2011)

I think the primary obstacle facing those who would "update" the confession is understanding and clearly identifying exactly what is out of date. I don't think modern attempts reach that. At least, not in substance.

There are relatively few in the Baptist arena that understand the point behind a confession: it is to remind us that our predecessors in faith spent a great deal of time thinking about sound doctrine and endeavored to set out guideposts for those on the way. The act of subscription is a public act of commitment to those doctrines. Nothing more than that. It does not anathematize those who don't subscribe. It has no authority over those who do not subscribe to it, and therefore is no threat to others. 

As a beloved former pastor of mine once said, "Ours is not a confessional age." And I think he is right. We tend to have a superficial understanding of the issues and doctrine. We look our history up on Wiki. We are quick to find the need for something new. The Confessions (all of the Reformed-era confessions) operate as a check on those impulses. I doubt there are many men of our era with the time to get together who have the ability and experience to actually improve on any of the Confessions. The men I can think of would, probably to a man, say, "stick with what we've got."

If a man or a church seeks to revise a confession to match their understanding of doctrine, nothing is stopping them. But let them be clear the reason for it is because they don't agree with the older ones. I do think it is better to not subscribe to something than to subscribe to something and try to change it.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 19, 2011)

Those who argue for changing confessional standards generally argue from the standpoint of changing times. "The times, they are a changing." "We live in a different world/era." These are common assertions. Well, friends, the wisest man who ever lived, who obtained said wisdom from the Holy Spirit Himself, disagrees with these assumptions.

"That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So *there is nothing new* under the sun." ~Ecclesiastes 1:9 (emphasis mine)

Being confessional means that we subscribe to the same set of truth statements. Truth, my friends, does not change because the Author of Truth is immutable. 

What we need to do is figure out how the Biblical Truth espoused in the confessions is to be applied to the current era in which we live. What we do not need to do is figure out the "new truth" that's for the world we live in today. There is no "new truth". 

That's my


----------



## KMK (Nov 19, 2011)

His article seems to be based on this:



> Throughout the last several decades many evangelical churches in America have been engaged in a process of reformation that is in some ways analogous to the great Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.



But he provides no data to back this up. I remember reading somewhere recently a different writer make the exact opposite claim. There certainly don't appear to be 'many' churches engaged in reformation in my neck of the woods.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 19, 2011)

JP Wallace said:


> Bill the BFM are very different in many, many ways from the 1689 confession, for a start they are not explicitly covenantal, nor do they reflect the 1689 understanding of the sacraments etc. etc. In other words they are not, and are very far from being, updates, but rather omit, modify and replace much (and much that is of great importance) that is contained in the 1689.



On the flip side, the BFM includes many things pertaining to our times that the LBC does not. There are clear statements on inerrancy, the roles of government, male and female roles in the church and in marriage, and evangelism and missions. I appreciate the BFM2000, and I know Reformed SBC churches that confess both the LBC1689 and the BFM2000. If the Continental Reformed can use Three Forms of Unity, why can't we use two?

It's not that truth has changed since the 17th century. It's that the things that concern the church today are different than what concerned the church back in the 17th century. The Reformed Confessions were addressing the errors of their time (specifically Roman Catholicism and Anabaptists), and the LBC was written to show essential agreement with them to prevent persecution.

The church is facing different issues four hundred years later in different continents all over the world. We should make confessions that reflect this.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 19, 2011)

KMK said:


> His article seems to be based on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The writer's intended audience (American Reformed Baptist and to an extent the young restless and Reformed crowd), is living the data. Think where such churches were 50 years ago and compare with today.


----------



## JP Wallace (Nov 19, 2011)

Don,

Not arguing with any of that, but I really do think that BFM is just about acceptable to a Reformed Church. I myself could not adopt it all because I think it is wrong in places and is lacking in many places. Furthermore, while not judging anyone, I can't see how a church can actually adopt both without qualifying both as I have stated taking e.g.in their teaching on the sacraments alone they take differing positions e.g. BCF is Calvinian, BFM is Zwinglian in relation to the Lord's Supper.

The BFM is perhaps a side-branch of the confessional tree but not a development of the 1689.

Anyway, I was specifically answering Bill's point; the BFM's are NOT updates of the 1689, doubt they were ever intended to be, they are modern baptist documents, even in comparing the two there is probably much less left in than was taken away. In keeping with your points I would actually say that any updated confession must ADD to the 1689, perhaps along the lines that you suggest.

Also just to be pedantic I believe the 1689 does teach inerrancy just not in modern terms.


----------



## KMK (Nov 19, 2011)

timmopussycat said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > His article seems to be based on this:
> ...



The urgency of his article seems to be based on the idea that there is a mini-reformation occurring in 'many' churches. If there are 'many' churches involved in such reformation, I am glad to hear it. Is this common knowledge? Are there statistics to back this up? In my experience, most churches over the last decade are not reforming. (Unless by 'reforming' you mean becoming Purpose-Driven)

It seems to me we have more urgent matters than updating the confession because 99.9% of church goers don't even know about the confession.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 19, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> I think the primary obstacle facing those who would "update" the confession is understanding and clearly identifying exactly what is out of date. I don't think modern attempts reach that. At least, not in substance.



It might also be that some find points not addressed or insufficiently addressed by the confessions. For instance, WCF XXI V uses the word "psalms". Some might believe that it would be helpful to inConfessionate limiting the meaning of this word to the 150 psalms in the bible, since with the term undefined, the confession does not enforce that limitation. 



VictorBravo said:


> There are relatively few in the Baptist arena that understand the point behind a confession: it is to remind us that our predecessors in faith spent a great deal of time thinking about sound doctrine and endeavored to set out guideposts for those on the way. The act of subscription is a public act of commitment to those doctrines. Nothing more than that. It does not anathematize those who don't subscribe. It has no authority over those who do not subscribe to it, and therefore is no threat to others.



Unfortunately the first statement does not apply to Dr. Gonzales who understands it well. And the problem with the second statement is that is misses the key point Dr. Gonzales is trying to make. Whatever subscribing to a confession is or was originally intended to be, inevitable human dynamics surrounding a tradition will tend to make that tradition into something else. 



VictorBravo said:


> As a beloved former pastor of mine once said, "Ours is not a confessional age." And I think he is right. We tend to have a superficial understanding of the issues and doctrine. We look our history up on Wiki. We are quick to find the need for something new. The Confessions (all of the Reformed-era confessions) operate as a check on those impulses. I doubt there are many men of our era with the time to get together who have the ability and experience to actually improve on any of the Confessions. The men I can think of would, probably to a man, say, "stick with what we've got."



It should be noted that the WCF also carefully provides conditions under which it may rightly be amended. If 1 VI and X are considered together, one consequence is that IF it can be shown that confessions err either by Scripture or by good or necessary consequence deductions drawn from thence, then revisions to confessions become mandatory, since Scripture is the supreme judge of all controversies of religion, all decrees of councils and all opinions of men. To give one example where the WCF's supporting scriptures could be amended under this heading, consider the problems inherent in trying to use Heb 1:1 and 2 to support the claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased." It is hard to claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased" is a good and necessary consequence of God having spoken to us by His Son, when we know that prophecy continued in the church after the advent of Christ for at least a couple of decades.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 19, 2011)

This:



timmopussycat said:


> To give one example where the WCF's supporting scriptures could be amended under this heading, consider the problems inherent in trying to use Heb 1:1 and 2 to support the claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased." It is hard to claim that "these former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased" is a good and necessary consequence of God having spoken to us by His Son, when we know that prophecy continued in the church after the advent of Christ for at least a couple of decades.



Seems like a good example of this:


VictorBravo said:


> As a beloved former pastor of mine once said, "Ours is not a confessional age." And I think he is right. We tend to have a superficial understanding of the issues and doctrine.



John Owen:


> In opposition to this gradual revelation of the mind of God under the old testament, the apostle intimates that now by Jesus, the Messiah, the Lord hath at once begun and finished the whole revelation of his will, according to their own hopes and expectation. So, Jude 1:3, the faith was “once delivered unto the saints;” not in one day, not in one sermon, or by one person, but at one season, or under one dispensation, comprising all the time from the entrance of the Lord Christ upon his ministry to the closing of the canon of Scripture; which period was now at hand. This season being once past and finished, no new revelation is to be expected, to the end of the world. Nothing shall be added unto nor altered in the worship of God any more.
> (...)
> We may see hence the absolute perfection of the revelation of the will of God by Christ and his apostles, as to every end and purpose whatever for which God ever did or ever will in this world reveal himself, or his mind and will. For as this was the last way and means that God ever designed for the discovery of himself, as to the worship and obedience which he requires, so the person by whom he accomplished this work makes it indispensably necessary that it be also absolutely perfect, from which nothing can be taken, to which nothing must be added, under the penalty of the extermination threatened to him that will not attend to the voice of that Prophet.



Overlooking *obvious* points was not the characteristic failing of the Protestants of the 17th century.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 19, 2011)

> Truth, my friends, does not change because the Author of Truth is immutable.


Agreed. However, theology, like other sciences has room for additional understanding. Do you think Charles Hodge, G. Vos, and C. Van Til have not added to our body of knowledge? This is the basis for updating a confession, not social ones.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 19, 2011)

I see the Confessions as a fundamental summary, not an exhaustive systematic theology. In that sense they are most useful to help us find bearings in the middle of deep, and sometimes convoluted, theological discussions.

For example, if a learned man expounds on an attribute of God and, after much argument and internal debate, concludes something that seems contrary to the Confessions, then, at the very least, we, who are not so learned, can sit up and note a potential red-flag.

It is not a matter of putting the Confessions before Scripture as using the Confession as a guide to Scripture.

If we come across something being taught that seems unconfessional, we can ask the proponent to clarify or explain. His options are: (1) it is confessional, but he is being misunderstood; (2) it is not confessional, and he plainly disagrees with the confession on this point, or (3) change the confession.

It's #3 that makes me most nervous.


----------



## Zach (Nov 19, 2011)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Those who argue for changing confessional standards generally argue from the standpoint of changing times. "The times, they are a changing." "We live in a different world/era." These are common assertions. Well, friends, the wisest man who ever lived, who obtained said wisdom from the Holy Spirit Himself, disagrees with these assumptions.
> 
> "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So *there is nothing new* under the sun." ~Ecclesiastes 1:9 (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...



 Though the Confessions are not infallible or, as Victor said, a complete systematic theology they provide an excellent framework to work within and do not need to change with the times. I think Spurgeon said, "We do not need to conform the Bible to our age, we need to conform our age to the Bible." I think something similar can be said of the Confessions. However, like someone in this thread pointed out Confessions aren't important for those that don't subscribe to them anyway.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 19, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> Do you think Charles Hodge, G. Vos, and C. Van Til have not added to our body of knowledge?



They most certainly did add to our understanding. But to my admittedly limited knowledge, none of them attempted to alter the confessions that they subscribed to.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 19, 2011)

I see lack of unity as the greatest obstacle to updating a confession or writing a new confession. Who speaks for the entire Reformed world, or even the English-speaking Reformed world? Why would anyone take notice if one little group decided to do something like this?

Now, if the NAPARC denominations agreed that on the basis of this new confession, they would merge into a single denomination, and if delegates from Reformed churches around the world would send delegates to advise and approve the new confession, I would be interested.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 19, 2011)

There needs to be a careful distinction of what is to be "updated," as several have posted above.

Is it the wording to the same theology or is it the theology that needs to be "updated" in this man's opinion?

The implication is that both need to be updated.

And what superior theology has the author discovered that it ought be updated to? What precisely? Another post appears to say remove sabbath keeping as it pertains to games, amusement and entertainment. 

If one simply doesn't want to subscribe to the Confession (London Baptist in this case), it's not a case of "strict subscription" being a barrier, it's merely a lack of agreement with the theology that unites those who do believe it faithfully summarizes the doctrine of Scripture.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 19, 2011)

How about leaving the confession alone and attaching a position paper that addresses some hot topics that face us today? A council would more likely come up with an added page or pages concerning some modern issues, that they can agree upon, rather than a reworking of the 1689.


----------



## kodos (Nov 19, 2011)

I agree with several other posters here. There isn't even a _demand_ for Confessional Christianity anymore. Most Evangelicals seem content with a loosey goosey 5-10 point "Statement of Faith", of which most points come straight out of the "Fundamentals".

Most of the YRR crowd largely follows _personalities_, as in "What has John Piper said?", "What did Driscoll say?", "What did Dever say?", "Have you read Keller's latest book?", etc.

The idea of a Confessional statement has been lost on this generation. It is lamentable but true. Teach Christians why Confessions are important and then we can maybe even *think* about updating them. Maybe they need to be in more "Modern" English. The OPCs MESV version of the WCF is handy for study after all.

I've been introducing the concepts of Confessions to those whom I work with who are in non Confessional Churches and I think they appreciate it. We just need to do a better job in educating evangelicals who think, "LEGALIST!" when you pull out a Confession.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 19, 2011)

kodos said:


> I agree with several other posters here. There isn't even a _demand_ for Confessional Christianity anymore. Most Evangelicals seem content with a loosey goosey 5-10 point "Statement of Faith", of which most points come straight out of the "Fundamentals".
> 
> Most of the YRR crowd largely follows _personalities_, as in "What has John Piper said?", "What did Driscoll say?", "What did Dever say?", "Have you read Keller's latest book?", etc.
> 
> ...




About 10 years ago, I was handed a LBC1689. I loved it. I had studied a little bit of G.I. Williamson's exposition on the WCF. To me it was the Baptist version of the WCF  . I consider it a summary of the main points of doctrine. If someone wants to know what I believe, (I'm talking fine points after general discussion, here) I will most likely hand them a 1689 confession with this statement: "If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. If I can't answer you, I'll put you in contact with someone who could do a better job." I'm sure my elders would be glad to help out someone who is DoG curious.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 19, 2011)

comment below



timmopussycat said:


> It should be noted that the WCF also carefully provides conditions under which it may rightly be amended.
> Yes, Confessions can be amended, after careful exegesis, deliberation and reflection. They have stood the test of time, and much divine scrutiny and are not to be amended for light and transient reason.
> 
> If 1 VI and X are considered together, one consequence is that IF it can be shown that confessions err either by Scripture or by good or necessary consequence deductions drawn from thence, then revisions to confessions become mandatory,
> ...


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 19, 2011)

First, though I'm not in a position where I must subscribe, I do indeed do so (in my case the WCF).

Secondly, with Federal Vision and other errors looming over us, I'd be terribly concerned about any effort to make changes or create a new WCF. I can see where attempts in the past to consider the confessions has been damaging -- 1905 WCF revisions/additions and the late 1960s decision to let churches choose whatever confession they want. 

Thirdly, I don't see how we can draw a line in the sand and say: all theological discovery stops here; that after 16 whatever, anything written is the mere opinion of man. (As if the original framers were not men.) If an effort were made in the future, I hope it could draw on the rich scholarship of the last four hundred years and perhaps bring clarity to some points based on the work of these later men.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 19, 2011)

A friend of mine once said over 25 years ago that he didn't even know that there was such a thing as Church History. He was raised in a theological construct known as 'The Restoration Movement'. It was started during the 2nd Great awakening. This movement was seeking to return to the teachings of the Apostolic period of the Church supposedly. 

He had never heard of a confession of faith or the counsels that sought to discern between heresy and orthodoxy. He had a rude awakening and ended up becoming a Reformed Confessional Chrisitan after learning about the scriptures and how the Church used confessions to define solid biblical theology. 

Most of the people I am introduced to have no idea what the reformation was or what any of the Confessions say. In a prior post Rom stated, "There isn't even a demand for Confessional Christianity anymore." I don't think there is a demand because no one is taught that the Faith is something that is to be confessed. We have had too much easy believism in our day and age. All we have to do is simply believe in Jesus. The motto is now "No Creed But Christ." At least that is what some people have been trying to propagate. And it has been done for so long that they don't even know what that means. 

Revivalism, Pietism, Decisionalism, and other methodologies have taken the place of Christ and replaced his person and work. Those terms have been misused, abused, and have replaced the truth of God's work in revival, piety, and striving against sin. The confessions address the right issues. I mostly disagree with Don's assessment when he states, 



> "It's not that truth has changed since the 17th century. It's that the things that concern the church today are different than what concerned the church back in the 17th century. The Reformed Confessions were addressing the errors of their time (specifically Roman Catholicism and Anabaptists), and the LBC was written to show essential agreement with them to prevent persecution.
> 
> The church is facing different issues four hundred years later in different continents all over the world. We should make confessions that reflect this."



The issues are the same. The concerns and errors are also. They haven't changed. We are a creation that stands before God. We are sinful and in need of a Saviour. We need deliverance from the snare of sin. Those things are pretty precisely defined and contended with doctrinally and application wise by our confessions and standards. The problem I see is that most of us don't even know what the Confessions and Standards say. And sadly most of us don't even know what they contain. I have to admit that I was ignorant for way too long. And I am ashamed of it. There is a wealth of doctrine and application in them. I challenge anyone to read the Westminster Larger Catechism and Confession of Faith and tell me different. 

I wish I had been discipled with such a great tool. 

I found something quite refreshing that Rev. Winzer stated a while back. I will leave it with you all to ponder. 





> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/time-new-reformed-confession-537/
> Someone in advocating a new Confessional Standard wanted to cut out some the sticky points of contention that seem to plague the Reformed Church. His position was that minimalizing the standards a bit would bring more Unity.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## elnwood (Nov 19, 2011)

JP Wallace said:


> Don,
> 
> Not arguing with any of that, but I really do think that BFM is just about acceptable to a Reformed Church. I myself could not adopt it all because I think it is wrong in places and is lacking in many places. Furthermore, while not judging anyone, I can't see how a church can actually adopt both without qualifying both as I have stated taking e.g.in their teaching on the sacraments alone they take differing positions e.g. BCF is Calvinian, BFM is Zwinglian in relation to the Lord's Supper.
> 
> ...



I've always read the BFM2000 to be broad enough to include both a Reformed and Memorial view of the Lord's Supper. After all the Reformed view does believe it is a memorial: "only a memorial" is actually in the BCF. But the Reformed view would say "only a memorial, AND ..." What specifically in the BFM can you not subscribe to? Or is it just the fact that you feel that it is lacking regarding the Lord's Supper that you feel you cannot affirm it?

For my part, I think it is better to add more Confessions than to modify it. I think it stands as a testimony to what our RB forebearers confessed 400 years ago. We should not add to it. It's called the 1689 for a reason -- what would be call it if we did a major revision/addition like the American WCF? No, better to come up with, say, the Magherafelt Baptist Confession of 2011 than to make revisions and pass it off as the London Baptist. Like the American WCF, you can ditch the part about the Anti-Christ that very few Reformed Baptists hold to anyway.

Regarding inerrancy in the confessions -- I believe the confessions teach inerrancy too, but the language is not modern enough to exclude the "limited inerrancy" found today. I've met a number of people who have denied inerrancy and subscribe to the Confessions in good conscience. It's a hole that needs to be plugged.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2011)

elnwood said:


> For my part, I think it is better to add more Confessions than to modify it.


That's the practice of the PCUSA. If you add enough Confessions then you don't really confess anything specifically. For instance:


elnwood said:


> I've always read the BFM2000 to be broad enough to include both a Reformed and Memorial view of the Lord's Supper


Consequently, as a Church, one person takes the Lord's Supper as memorial while another takes it as Sacramental. In another case, one appeals to the 1689 while the other prefers the BFM2000 which is broad enough to include an Arminian soteriology.

This is precisely why ministers started adding more and more Confessions in the PCUSA because they had sufficient points of contact in the corpus of all their Confessions to be able to cover all their bases.

As one who has to examine candidates for licensure, it's often hard enough for men to master one set of standards rather than many and your comment demonstrates either naiveté, ignorance about the purpose of Confessions, or both.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 20, 2011)

I would argue that the confessions are not a summary of just any kind of doctrine, but those things for which the church fought tooth and nail against their opponents. The ancient creeds function in much the same way. They summarize theological wars that have been fought and won - essentially, they are battle cries. Are we still in a war with Rome? Absolutely. So, the original confession still stands. But we also have other new opponents, with deadly teaching, who have risen up: prosperity theology, open theism, radical fundamentalism, etc.


----------



## kodos (Nov 20, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I would argue that the confessions are not a summary of just any kind of doctrine, but those things for which the church fought tooth and nail against their opponents. The ancient creeds function in much the same way. They summarize theological wars that have been fought and won - essentially, they are battle cries. Are we still in a war with Rome? Absolutely. So, the original confession still stands. But we also have other new opponents, with deadly teaching, who have risen up: prosperity theology, open theism, radical fundamentalism, etc.



The Confessions already are incompatible with those teachings. For instance, no one can read the WCF and think that Open Theism is even possible within the framework of the Confession. Same for Fundamentalism and Prosperity Theology.

Sure it doesn't come out and say the phrase, "Open Theism is heresy", but read WCF 3 (God's Eternal Decree) and you should come to that reading quite naturally


----------



## KMK (Nov 20, 2011)

It isn't the job of the confession to do battle with spiritual powers in high places. That job belongs to the preaching of the Gospel.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 20, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Consequently, as a Church, one person takes the Lord's Supper as memorial while another takes it as Sacramental. In another case, one appeals to the 1689 while the other prefers the BFM2000 which is broad enough to include an Arminian soteriology.
> 
> This is precisely why ministers started adding more and more Confessions in the PCUSA because they had sufficient points of contact in the corpus of all their Confessions to be able to cover all their bases.
> 
> As one who has to examine candidates for licensure, it's often hard enough for men to master one set of standards rather than many and your comment demonstrates either naiveté, ignorance about the purpose of Confessions, or both.



Rich, as I wrote above, there are many Reformed Baptist churches dually aligned with ARBCA and the SBC that take both the LBC1689 and BFM2000 seriously. Comparisons between them and the PCUSA are uncalled for, as well as accusations of naiveté and ignorance. The SBC has its issues, but they are still a gospel-believing denomination. The PCUSA, by and large, is not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Consequently, as a Church, one person takes the Lord's Supper as memorial while another takes it as Sacramental. In another case, one appeals to the 1689 while the other prefers the BFM2000 which is broad enough to include an Arminian soteriology.
> ...



I fail to see how your response is relevant. The point I made is that adding Confessions is a recipe for Confessional impotence.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Comparisons between them and the PCUSA are uncalled for, as well as accusations of naiveté and ignorance.



What? The comparison is very relevant. In fact a battle over the authority of scripture and its infallibility (or innerrancy if you please) have been battles that both denominations have struggled with. I would even go as far to say that the situations are very similar. The leadership in the two different denominations have had to struggle with the moving of the lines (boundaries), so to speak. It is very relevant. 

Don, your rebuke to Rich seems uncalled for. First off, Rich is an Elder in his denomination and he is responsible as an Elder in the examination of candidates for licensure. I also believe he took vows and was charged as an Elder to uphold sound doctrine and behavior for the Church and in his own doctrine and life. In other words he is not speaking out of thin air. The assessment he drew out for us is a reality. Upon historical examination of the PCUSA's slow descent into unsound practice one can see how it has stemmed from the moving of the boundaries. The same has happened in the Southern Baptist Convention. I think you can at least acknowledge that. There have been many unsound practices that they picked up due to their ejection of the doctrines of grace and their attachment to revivalism. This should seem apparent when you consider the struggles the Founders Movement has experienced these past years. Second, he didn't impute any motive in his comment on niavete or ignorance. It is pretty much a given that the Church for the most part is rather ignorant concerning the purpose and contents of the creeds, confessions, and standards. The Church does seem niave in its appoach and understanding to a lot of things, as a child is to it's future.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 20, 2011)

Don, if I may clarify on Rich's behalf, I don't think he intended to draw a comparison between the fidelity of PCUSA and the conservative baptist churches in the SBC and ARBCA. He is simply pointing out the fact that (whatever the intention of the drafters of multiple new confessions may be) once the number of confessions of a church is multiplied - especially if there is any room whatsoever for setting one of them against another - it becomes very hard _in practice_ to prevent an increasingly widening latitude on what is confessionally allowable. I don't think he was attempting to draw a comparison between the faithfulness of the SBC and the PCUSA at all. Given how much trouble even many conservative Presbyterian denominations have with keeping up confessional literacy and knowledge, I think his concern is quite valid - if it is difficult to maintain one confession, it is even more difficult to maintain several.

(Rich, please accept my apologies and allow to me withdraw my comments if you feel I spoke further than or contrary to what you wished to communicate.)


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 20, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I would argue that the confessions are not a summary of just any kind of doctrine, but those things for which the church fought tooth and nail against their opponents. The ancient creeds function in much the same way. They summarize theological wars that have been fought and won - essentially, they are battle cries. Are we still in a war with Rome? Absolutely. So, the original confession still stands. But we also have other new opponents, with deadly teaching, who have risen up: prosperity theology, open theism, radical fundamentalism, etc.



The Confessions were never intended to speak every single doctrine or every single part of God's Word. And, yes, it probably is accurate to say they focused on doctrines that have been most contended for (against error) historically.

If one studies the errors of the seven churches of Revelation 3, one sees representative samples of each in our generation. Nothing changes. Sin is ever at the door. The Devil is every bit the same deceiver.

In that sense, the battles are never won.

Every doctrine of grace is under attack from without and within, as they were at the time the Westminster Confession was created.

And while names change over time, and man's supposed sophistication changes, every one of the errors you mention- 
"prosperity theology, open theism, radical fundamentalism" are addressed, at least in part, in the Westminster Confession.

As Ecclesiastes says, indeed:


> Ecclesiastes 1:9
> The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.



Something else not new under the sun, prideful factions of men who would tinker with key biblical truth, and confession of it.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 20, 2011)

Comments below


Scott1 said:


> comment below
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Two points. 1) I am not claiming that a cessationist position is in error. I am merely pointing out that trying to support it with this text alone comes a cropper when tested by the Confessional standard of good and necessary consequence. 2) And while I agree with Greg Bahnsen that the WCF is the "most carefully worked out creed in the evangelical church", it too must be tested by its own standard.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 20, 2011)

It's pretty pointless updating the Confession, unless you want more splits.

I'd be hard pressed to know what's wrong with it, apart from wording and emphasis.

Supplementary confessions and position papers, e.g. the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, can be added by those denominations wishing to clarify certain points or give Spiritual illumination that has been given subsequent to 1646 confessional form.

But the WCF is already a very full document. Any supplementary material would only be filling in some details.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 20, 2011)

Tim,
The logic that the Westminster Confession must be changed because you suppose that special revelation ordinarily comes outside of (completed) Scripture is the issue.

You misunderstand Westminster I to start with, then claim that is an example of why the Confession needs to be changed.

The Confession is suboordinate to "the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture," and you are correct to say that does, at least imply, it ought be changed to reflect Scripture if it does not. 

It does not negate the Confession's place, however, nor Scripture's place as infallible.

(Remember, a Confession, even if you were to say it was only 98% biblical, still serves as a basis for unity and accountability. Nor does it loose its place because, say 10% disagree with it at some point)

"The former ways" Hebrews citation supports the notion that special revelation, at least ordinarily was complete in the apostolic era.

Special revelation (Eph 2:20) is built upon the (Old Testament) prophets and (New Testament) apostles, and serves as the foundation of the Christian faith until the end of the world. It was "once" and only once delivered to us through them (cf Jude 1:3).

So, this is not an instance of the Confession needing update.

The Confession duly recognizes "miracles" and God's complete ability to work miracles.



> Westminster Confession
> Chapter V
> Of Providence
> 
> ...



You state the Confession must be tested by its own terms (for revision) with the implication if not, it needs to be disregarded or re-done.

Tested by who?

Who is qualified to do that?

Charismatic/pentecostals who, in the main do not even have a systematic biblical theology, let alone one that understands _sola scriptura_? Whose whole identification as such is not even biblical?

Keep in mind there would need to be a clear and broad "divines" consensus in our generation to make a change to the Confession, one that has been time tested already and produced by a generation that, amidst great peril, were committed to determine confession according to the "true religion" as revealed in the Bible



Today, calls for revision seem to come from prideful academics or cliques who, in isolation, would form factions shaped in their own image, or people who simply do not understand what the Confession says, or those who simply do not want to abide the truth as summarized in it.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 20, 2011)

Paul, Martin, and Rich --

We can agree to disagree, but I don't think we ought to be assigning ignorance and naiveté to each other.

The Three Forms of Unity have served the Continental Reformed well. Thus, I don't think you can make such a blanket statement that "adding Confessions is a recipe for Confessional impotence." One can even consider the WCF an "addition" to the 3FU.

Baptists have had their issues, but at the end of the day, Baptists by and large have upheld Biblical inerrancy, and the Presbyterians have by and large lost the gospel. I'm convinced that making stronger, modern statements on inerrancy in their Statements of Faith is part of what helped the Baptists succeed in fighting back liberalism where the Presbyterians failed. Adding confessions is not what killed the gospel among Presbyterians. Losing the inerrancy battle was what did it.

Even now, largely due to the Peter Enns controversy, inerrancy is being debated in the PCA. Meanwhile, in the SBC, inerrancy is solid, and not going anywhere.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 20, 2011)

elnwood said:


> I've always read the BFM2000 to be broad enough to include both a Reformed and Memorial view of the Lord's Supper. After all the Reformed view does believe it is a memorial: "only a memorial" is actually in the BCF. But the Reformed view would say "only a memorial, AND ..."



Don, I still think two different things are being discussed. The portion of comment which started this specific discussion is what I've quoted above: that is, the idea of adopting additional confessional documents which are specifically _broader_ than what a church has historically and already confessed. I think Rich's comments need to be read in that context in order to be understood. He is obviously not going to be against what Dort did. The churches had a confession (the Belgic) and a catechism (the Heidelberg), and the synod produced canons which were not broader, but narrowly clarifying the Confession. They were not adding new confessional documents about issues which had already been addressed by a received creed or confession, but were doing that which was necessary to preserve the good order of their churches and to prevent a broad interpretation of their confession to be allowed in their church. This is fundamentally different from receiving an additional document (such as this BFM - about which I know nothing, except from what you have just told us: namely, that it has a broader statement of the sacrament than does the LBCF) which is broader in allowance than what the church has previously received. 

I'm not attempting to wrangle, but I do want to contextualize what Rich appears to be saying, since I'm not entirely convinced he's being understood in the precise light he intended. Yes, obviously, the PCUSA is not in the shape it is in _because_ it received new confessions: it is in the shape it is in _because_ false and terrible notions began creeping into the church. BUT, rather than being dealt with properly, these ideas were allowed to remain and take permanent root _because_ of documents introduced which allowed them to be maintained. Allowing broader documents to _be able_ to replace earlier, received, narrower documents is dangerous. Is this something you'd agree with, or is that still disagreeable to you?

Peace, brother.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 20, 2011)

Paul,

I think it's a difference between how Presbyterians have used the Confessions and how Baptists use the Confessions. Presbyterian government enforces denominational standards from the top down, and using several confessional standards in which you only need to agree to one, as the PCUSA does, will water down doctrine.

In the Baptist model, each individual church decides which Confessions and Statements of Faith to subscribe to. The BFM was intentionally written to allow differing views on the Lord's Supper and election, but the authors included good Reformed Baptists like Albert Mohler.

An ARBCA/SBC church would subscribe to both the 1689 and the BFM, the first to affirm their historic Reformed Baptist convictions, and the second for unity with the other Southern Baptist churches they partner with in missions through cooperative programs. The IMB does great missions work around the world, so I support churches that support the IMB.

I do not think it waters down Reformed doctrine if a church decides to subscribe to both, which I believe is what Rich was saying. If you think it does, I'm not going to make it a hill to die on. I simply don't like to be called ignorant or naive (or both) if we disagree.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Baptists by and large have upheld Biblical inerrancy, and the Presbyterians have by and large lost the gospel.



Don, in all due respect, you have much to learn historically. I don't know why, but it seems you aren't listening. There is a major Baptist denomination that is a liberal fountainhead. Can you assure me that there aren't still pockets in the SBC that are liberal in their theology. Just because a Church is SBC doesn't necessarily mean they hold strongly to anything. It is an association of Churches that give to Missions. 

You stated...


> I am convinced modern statements on inerrancy in their Statements of Faith is part of what helped the Baptists succeed in fighting back liberalism where the Presbyterians failed.



The Presbyterian Church despite the various denominations do hold to a solid understanding that the Scriptures are infallible. The OPC, PCA, EPC, RPCNA, RPCGA, and those who are members of NAPARC have a solid foundation. To equate those denominations with the unconfessional PCUSA is problematic. Peter Enns was dismissed from Westminster and he is considered outside the pale. Yes, his position has mutated into unsoundness and it is being contended with. To equate the PCA as falling into his error is false and slanderous in my estimation. 

Also, because these denominations have a Confessional Standard they have been able to stand firm for Centuries and remain healthy. Just because a part of the Church decides to depart from it's foundational confession doesn't mean the the Presbyterian Church has abandoned soundness and the gospel. Your blanket statement is false in its accusation. Your note, "Modern Statements on Innerrancy," is a telling story. They are recent statements. It is really a Seminary that took a major role in this play. Southern Baptist Seminary was very instrumental in this and they really have not held to a strong position concerning the doctrine of Scripture until most recent years. Even Boyce in his Abstracts seemed to take a middle ground on the Theistic Evolution theory if I remember correctly. So really the issue isn't as set in stone for the SBC as you might want to make it sound. SBS is not a Confessional School even though they appreciate the Confessions. As far as I can tell the only thing set in stone (so to speak) is that the Confessions do have a strong statement concerning the Scriptures. They have Confessed what the scriptures are for going on four Centuries now. And that testimony is still standing strong. That is very telling to me.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 20, 2011)

We are placed in a difficult position:

The truth behind "always reforming" mandates us to continue examining even our most cherished man-made confessional affirmations in the light of Scripture.
The truth of human nature makes tinkering with confessions exceedingly dangerous to pull off effectively and non-schismatically.

I would draw an analogy to the current impending failure (at least at last reporting, it was the direction things appear to be heading) of the congressional "Super Committee." So far the Rs and the Ds have stayed predictably within the channels of their often-stated and well established orthodoxies: reduce entitlements, no new taxes vs. protect entitlements, raise taxes.

Some of the strongest proponents of confessional integrity also champion the "framework" theory of creation in Genesis. Will the new confession come down on one side or the other on this topically relevant issue? If so, it will necessarily draw lines that some of you may not want to permit. Do you want your confession to take a strict subscriptionist view of this or of the CT vs. TR/MT controversy? 

Some controversies (e.g., the ordination of women) appear less pressing in some Reformed circles than in broad evangelicalism or the mainlines. Others (cf. John Frame's view of allowable practices in worship) seem to bedevil some Reformed circles.


----------



## MW (Nov 20, 2011)

It is sad to see "semper reformanda" adopted in isolation to the "reformata."


----------



## py3ak (Nov 20, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Updating the confession seems part and parcel of the principle of reformata semper reformanda. We are living in another age and the church has different opponents we must distinguish ourselves from. I believe the Reformers would have expected the church 500 years after their time to have updated their confession.



Dennis, this might be a mistake, depending on what you mean by "update". 
If the Reformed churches are always reforming _secundum verbum dei_, then they will not suffer an "update" to _deprive_ them of part of their attainments. That takes "update" as revision. So an update that backs away from the truth confessed should be considered a deformation rather than further reformation. 
If "update" be taken to refer to the language, in the case of Westminster, at least, it runs into the difficulty that the language of Westminster is precise, exact, scientific. Warfield was right to say, "All attempts at restatement must either repeat their definitions or fall away from the purity of their conceptions or the justness of their language."
If "update" be taken to mean "supplement", as your example suggests, I think that is the least objectionable way to speak. But it does run into the point Mr. Winzer raised that there is no structure for broad consensus anymore. An addition to the Confession at this point would be further ramification, not a basis for increased unity.

Finally, I would add that though certainly the creeds and confessions exclude false understandings, the way they do that is principally by carefully phrased positive statements of truth. And the positive statement is just as true now as it was when it was written.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 20, 2011)

py3ak said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > Updating the confession seems part and parcel of the principle of reformata semper reformanda. We are living in another age and the church has different opponents we must distinguish ourselves from. I believe the Reformers would have expected the church 500 years after their time to have updated their confession.
> ...



I'm thinking of update in terms of language and emphasis. Is the current Pope still the Anti-Christ, and is Rome the synagogue of Satan in the same way that the Reformers rightly condemned them in their day? Some discussion is definitely worthy. They made those remarks in accordance with matters that were contemporary to their day. 

Confessions certainly had a unifying effect in the Reformers' context; there weren't tens of thousands of denominations as there are now. We're not living in an age where people want verbal definition to their faith. But if the confessing churches did update their confessions to reflect their convictions about modern theology and scholarship, at least it would help to see exactly where the differences are among confessing communions, rather than naming the differences based on illustrious personalities (Piper, Horton, Sproul, MacArthur) or theological institutions (Princeton, Southern, Westminster). Doctrine is the property of the church, not individual authors or schools.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 21, 2011)

py3ak said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Nov 21, 2011)

This leaves me a little puzzled.
Do the proof texts claim to be exhaustive? Is _any_ text interpreted without reference to other texts? Ultimately when you assign a place in evidence of a view it must be taken for granted that you are reading it in its own context and in the context of Scripture as a whole, and the adduction of parallels, whether verbal or material, is by no means excluded.
Carl Trueman has also noted that in the 17th century citing a proof text served as a sign to go get your best commentaries and dig in.

You raise a reason Hebrews 1:1,2 is insufficient (that it doesn't address a distinction), and then you state that Scripture won't let us apply that distinction. Perhaps the genuine insufficiency is in your own explanation of the matter?

Showing an increased likelihood of error is not the same thing as showing error. My own limited reading has given me two track records: one, that of the Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries who have a demonstrable tendency to have a deep and subtle understanding of Scripture, theology, and language. The other, that of many moderns, most especially myself, who have a track record of missing the point: whether through a lack of the proper conceptual framework, whether we skip over some convoluted discussions as irrelevant, whether we fail to identify the context of what is said, whether we faint at the length of the discussion, or for whatever other reason. Putting those two records side by side, and adding in that misreading is so common you'd think it was a major sport, I have developed a "wait and see" approach to the statements of those times; and the more I have learned, the more the number of disagreements or quibbles has been reduced.

At best, and I remain unconvinced, your case is that two references should be added. Molehill, meet mountain.

This is all rather far off topic now.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 21, 2011)

I don't mean to distract from your back and forth, but thought it would be helpful to interact with the logic as it relates to your other post.



steadfast7 said:


> I'm thinking of update in terms of language and emphasis. Is the current Pope still the Anti-Christ,
> By and large, this statement was not adopted in the American colonies. So, 200+ years later the example you state is not really not an issue. Many denominations have not adopted this- so it is not a general reason to change the Westminster Confession, which is how you are reasoning it.
> 
> and is Rome the synagogue of Satan in the same way that the Reformers rightly condemned them in their day? One might say as this was BEFORE the council of Trent, things got even worse after the Confession when Rome officially repudiated the gospel (justification by faith alone) at Trent. It's not a case that it subsequently became a "true church," but rather got worse, at least in terms of official confession. So, again, not a reason to change the Westminster Confession in our day.Some discussion is definitely worthy. They made those remarks in accordance with matters that were contemporary to their day.
> ...


----------



## JML (Nov 21, 2011)

It would definitely be much more difficult to update the WCF than it would the LBCF. For the sole reason that officers are required to take vows in relation to the WCF in many Presbyterian denominations. Reformed Baptists do not do this and for the most part are only loosely affiliated with each other by the LBCF. Even with this, most Reformed Baptist pastors that I know take exceptions to different sections of the LBCF but it is not a hinderance to their becoming a pastor. One must remember that Reformed Baptists are not a denomination but a group of independent churches united (loosely) with the LBCF. One could argue that when one takes exceptions to a certain confession that you have already created a new/updated confession. I guess that would be the age old question of how many exceptions do you have to take before it is not the WCF or LBCF anymore.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 21, 2011)

Comments below: 



Scott said:


> Tim,
> The logic that the Westminster Confession must be changed because you suppose that special revelation ordinarily comes outside of (completed) Scripture is the issue.


Logical error and unConfessional procedure. Before you can assert why a man is wrong in what he claims, you must show the error of his claim. This error, which CS Lewis called "Bulverism" in an essay everybody on this board should read, is not authorized by the WCF as an acceptable means to resolve controversies and divisions in the church. 



Scott said:


> You misunderstand Westminster I to start with, then claim that is an example of why the Confession needs to be changed.
> The Confession is suboordinate to "the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture," and you are correct to say that does, at least imply, it ought be changed to reflect Scripture if it does not. It does not negate the Confession's place, however, nor Scripture's place as infallible. (Remember, a Confession, even if you were to say it was only 98% biblical, still serves as a basis for unity and accountability. Nor does it loose its place because, say 10% disagree with it at some point.)



I fully understand the theoretical subordination of Confessions to Scripture and their function in confessional churches. You however, appear to be missing a very significant consequence that occurs when logically proven errors are discovered in a Confession or a document holding Confessional authority. When errors are discovered in such a standard, until and unless they are corrected, confidence in the standard is lost to a certain extent. I had to deal first hand with this problem when involved in trying to help some friends, refugees from a Reformed micro-denomination which added documents to its standards which could not be demonstrated at all points, and that in a clearly ungodly way. 



Scott said:


> "The former ways" Hebrews citation supports the notion that special revelation, at least ordinarily was complete in the apostolic era.
> Special revelation (Eph 2:20) is built upon the (Old Testament) prophets and (New Testament) apostles, and serves as the foundation of the Christian faith until the end of the world. It was "once" and only once delivered to us through them (cf Jude 1:3).
> 
> So, this is not an instance of the Confession needing update.



You miss the point of my previous post. If "God spoke to our Fathers by the prophets . . . but [now] has spoken to us by his Son" was intended by the author of Heb to refer to all divine revelation, how do we resolve the contradiction with the presence of prophecy in the post resurrection church without using other Scriptures. You yourself would appear to have to add Jude 1.3 and Eph 2:20 to do so. 



Scott said:


> You state the Confession must be tested by its own terms (for revision) with the implication if not, it needs to be disregarded or re-done.
> Tested by who? Who is qualified to do that?



Anyone applying the rule of "good and necessary consequence." If the logic is sound and the premises are valid, does it matter who comes up with the correction? This is what the divines seem to have mandated.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 21, 2011)

py3ak said:


> This leaves me a little puzzled.
> Do the proof texts claim to be exhaustive? Is _any_ text interpreted without reference to other texts? Ultimately when you assign a place in evidence of a view it must be taken for granted that you are reading it in its own context and in the context of Scripture as a whole, and the adduction of parallels, whether verbal or material, is by no means excluded.



Sorry you are puzzled Reuben. My intended point was that when the supplied proof texts do not provide sufficient proof to conclude that the claim supported is a good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures cited, then a revision of the Confession will be profitable. 



py3ak said:


> Carl Trueman has also noted that in the 17th century citing a proof text served as a sign to go get your best commentaries and dig in.



Maybe that's true in the general literature of the period. Yet while I know of a couple of examples that appear to fit within that description, the procedure is unConfessional when applied to the WCF and its immediate descendants (Savoy, 1689) which do not allow us to cite commentaries to settle issues that divide churches. And using secondary authorities instead of Scripture creates an additional problem when dealing with modern evangelicals or Catholics. As has been repeatedly noted in this thread, confessionalism is a minority view today. As one who has had extensive discussions over the years with confessionalists, I have been repeatedly struck by numerous instances where I have found them unable to demonstrate that a confessional claim was a necessary or even in some cases a good consequence of the Scriptures cited. I suspect that one major reason why confessionalism is at such a discount today is that our non-confessional brethren have encountered other examples of this inability to provide Scripturally solid support for confessional claims. If our confessions can't demonstrate that our claims are good and necessary consequence deductions from Scripture, shouldn't we amend them so we can? 



py3ak said:


> You raise a reason Hebrews 1:1,2 is insufficient (that it doesn't address a distinction), and then you state that Scripture won't let us apply that distinction. Perhaps the genuine insufficiency is in your own explanation of the matter?



No it isn't; you misunderstood what I was trying to do. I was giving two attempts to get out of the problem that I identified and I showed why neither will work.



py3ak said:


> Showing an increased likelihood of error is not the same thing as showing error. My own limited reading has given me two track records: one, that of the Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries who have a demonstrable tendency to have a deep and subtle understanding of Scripture, theology, and language. The other, that of many moderns, most especially myself, who have a track record of missing the point: whether through a lack of the proper conceptual framework, whether we skip over some convoluted discussions as irrelevant, whether we fail to identify the context of what is said, whether we faint at the length of the discussion, or for whatever other reason. Putting those two records side by side, and adding in that misreading is so common you'd think it was a major sport, I have developed a "wait and see" approach to the statements of those times; and the more I have learned, the more the number of disagreements or quibbles has been reduced.



I agree that all that glitters is not gold and many modern challenges have failed to fully come to terms with the full strength of the reformed worthies case. And I also agree that many modern disagreements vanish when we know do come to terms with the full extent of a "reformed worthy" position. 

Yet the essential problem with your statement is this, that in our non-confessional age it is a cop out. When an evangelical or Catholic demonstrates a logical shortcoming in the confessions then challenges us to resolve it, we simply don't have the luxury of resorting to a reflex traditionalism until a solution turns up. If we are going to claim a confession is an accurate summary of biblical teaching, then even a single provable inaccuracy in the confession (as measured by the Confesson's own standard) casts doubt on our claim and for the sake of our witness, the sooner we resolve it the better. 



py3ak said:


> At best, and I remain unconvinced, your case is that two references should be added. Molehill, meet mountain.



An accurate summary of my particular example and I agree that in itself it's a molehill. But adding Scriptures to support confessional points should be the easiest kind of amending that may be required. Gardeners do sometimes address problems caused by molehills before they get worse and I think confessionalists are well advised to do likewise. But if one molehill is present, others may be also. It would be an interesting exercise to go through the Confessions checking the GNC adequacy of the supporting Scriptures. Is there anybody on this board who has done it? Or know somebody who has?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 22, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> It would definitely be much more difficult to update the WCF than it would the LBCF. For the sole reason that officers are required to take vows in relation to the WCF in many Presbyterian denominations. Reformed Baptists do not do this and for the most part are only loosely affiliated with each other by the LBCF. Even with this, most Reformed Baptist pastors that I know take exceptions to different sections of the LBCF but it is not a hinderance to their becoming a pastor. One must remember that Reformed Baptists are not a denomination but a group of independent churches united (loosely) with the LBCF. One could argue that when one takes exceptions to a certain confession that you have already created a new/updated confession. I guess that would be the age old question of how many exceptions do you have to take before it is not the WCF or LBCF anymore.



Some Reformed Baptist churches have confessional membership in which the whole congregation subscribes to the confession.


----------



## Moireach (Nov 22, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I'm thinking of update in terms of language and emphasis. Is the current Pope still the Anti-Christ, and is Rome the synagogue of Satan in the same way that the Reformers rightly condemned them in their day? Some discussion is definitely worthy. They made those remarks in accordance with matters that were contemporary to their day.


If he was, he cannot cease to be. They didn't base this on 'matters contemporary in their day'. They observed these things of course, but they made those remarks in accordance with scripture. And if they were writing the confession today, they would have *a lot* more to back them up. But *even* in their day there was ample evidence. People seem to think that nothing could be clearer in these days that the pope was the antichrist but today it's impossible to tell. With time comes more and more and more evidence.

Anyway, to respond to the actual thread, I'd like to echo what one person has already said regarding vows. If you're asking for a language update, maybe a couple of added points with no contradiction of what's already there, then this doesn't necessarily concern you, though I'd agree with others that I don't think it's necessary. But for those of you asking for changes made and parts taken out, how can this even be done with office bearers under oath? Their vows don't even allow for what you are proposing, and neither does the constitution of the church. This wasn't a huge mistake that has trapped people though, it was done on purpose and for a good reason.

As Rev Winzer has implied (I think), the changes being proposed are really a very slight watering down to allow further unity. But this will continue until there is much unity and a much watered down confession.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 22, 2011)

timmopussycat said:


> when logically proven errors are discovered in a Confession or a document holding Confessional authority.



Tim,
I'm not sure you have made a _prima facie_ (basic) case of "logically proven error" in the Westminster Confession, at least not in this thread.

If that is indeed your assertion, that particular error should be fully explained and engaged in a separate thread. If you subscribe to the the Westminster Confession you must have made known this error to your church authority, and stated your differences with it.

If that is not the case, and you do not subscribe to the Westminster Confession, and you are just looking at this theoretically from the outside, then you must clearly and carefully explain the error you think exists and how it would be corrected, and subject that to "divine" scrutiny. By that, I mean allow some people with theological training to examine and engage it carefully.

It is not sufficient to merely assert that it exists or to quote one short excerpt from Mr. Lewis.

Honestly, from what you have stated on this thread, I don't even understand what the (logical) error you say exists is, let alone your remedy language for it. 

I do believe that Westminster Chapter I is faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture, "Of the Holy Scripture."

It shows the centrality of Scripture to the special revelation of God until to the end of this world.

And it is now complete, and not supplemented, at least not ordinarily, nor in any way to be anticipated by God's people, by extra biblical special revelation.

That's because God intended His Word to have primacy and to be explicit for all His people.

The Westminster divines knew that.

And, in summarizing the doctrine of Scripture, they were right in that.


----------



## JML (Nov 22, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Some Reformed Baptist churches have confessional membership in which the whole congregation subscribes to the confession.



Thanks for the correction. I was not aware of this. The most I have seen is that joining members are made aware that the church abides by the confession and that it will be used as a guide on ecclesiastical matters but the members were not made to "subscribe" in the strictest sense. They just had to acknowledge that they are aware that this is the church's doctrinal statement.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 22, 2011)

timmopussycat said:


> Yet the essential problem with your statement is this, that in our non-confessional age it is a cop out. When an evangelical or Catholic demonstrates a logical shortcoming in the confessions then challenges us to resolve it, we simply don't have the luxury of resorting to a reflex traditionalism until a solution turns up. If we are going to claim a confession is an accurate summary of biblical teaching, then even a single provable inaccuracy in the confession (as measured by the Confesson's own standard) casts doubt on our claim and for the sake of our witness, the sooner we resolve it the better.



I have yet to see an evangelical or Catholic (or Reformed) person do this. My simple point is this: at times I thought I had detected an error or point of disagreement in the Confession. As I learned more, it turned out the error was mine - whether in apprehending what was being affirmed, or simply in having a wrong view myself. That gives me no reason to amend the Confession. I still have a couple of doubts or quibbles; but I have stopped thinking that my own disagreement is likely due to my superior understanding, simply because my own understanding has been so often proven not to be superior. 
The first requirement for amending the Confession is proof that it has been understood: otherwise we reject we know not what. The second is to demonstrate that the tenor of Scripture is different. I have yet to see a proposal for amending the Confession that demonstrates both of those points, and I can only think of one that passes the first test.

It seems to me that the genuine solution to the dilemma you raise is for symbolics to receive more attention from the elders in our churches. And with the work being done by Chris Coldwell, Chad van Dixhoorn, and others, the number of excuses for failing to understand the Confession properly or defend it adequately are diminishing.

Any minister who subscribes to the Confession should be confident that it is the teaching of Scripture.

Commentaries don't settle issues by authority, but the only mere interpretation is a wrong one, for the meaning of the word of God, is the word of God. Commentaries are ruled out in answering test questions, not in discussing a matter of interpretation. You say "when" the supplied proof texts are inadequate, but I think, absent better evidence, "if" would be the more accurate word.


----------



## KMK (Nov 22, 2011)

py3ak said:


> I have stopped thinking that my own disagreement is likely due to my superior understanding, simply because my own understanding has been so often proven not to be superior.



This has been my experience as well. Thanks for putting it into words, Ruben.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 22, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > when logically proven errors are discovered in a Confession or a document holding Confessional authority.
> ...



Is my sig not printing for you? In case it isn't, I'm a member of a non-confessional Baptist church (the whys and wherefores of which are a long story) but I personally hold the 1689 with a couple of minor reservations I am still working through.



Scott1:911604 said:


> If that is not the case, and you do not subscribe to the Westminster Confession, and you are just looking at this theoretically from the outside, then you must clearly and carefully explain the error you think exists and how it would be corrected, and subject that to "divine" scrutiny. By that, I mean allow some people with theological training to examine and engage it carefully. It is not sufficient to merely assert that it exists or to quote one short excerpt from Mr. Lewis.Honestly, from what you have stated on this thread, I don't even understand what the (logical) error you say exists is, let alone your remedy language for it.



Your error was that you alleged a reason _why _I am wrong _before_ demonstrating that I _was_ in fact wrong to point out that the confessional assertion that prophecy has ceased needs greater Scriptural support than Heb 1:1 and 2 alone will provide. A fact which you yourself demonstrated by citing a couple of additional scriptures that may be held to buttress the point. So if you yourself agree that I am right in the merit of the case, your claim that I err because of my alleged continuationism is not only flat wrong but also irrelevant.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 22, 2011)

timmopussycat said:


> why I am wrong before demonstrating that I was in fact wrong to point out that the confessional assertion that prophecy has ceased needs greater Scriptural support than Heb 1:1 and 2 alone will provide.



The burden of proof, and it is a high burden of proof, is on the one asserting the Westminster Confession is wrong.

(Particularly on a Confessional Board.)


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 22, 2011)

I think this thread has run its course. Picking away at the insufficiency of the Scriptural proofs is not exactly a reason to revise the Confessions. Given that there are other threads on the broad issue, I'm closing this one.


----------

