# I am beginning to understand the importance of a confession but...



## shackleton (Feb 9, 2009)

..., and this is a legitimate question, who's confession are we to follow? Everybody has one. Lutherans, some baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed etc. There are also different versions of confessions, it gets revised every so many years, some follow the 1643 others the 1646, then you have the RPCNA interpreting the confession one way and the OPC another. So, as a layman, who am I to believe? Each group is saying that the other either does not take it far enough or that they take it too far. Plus, there are may instances in which it seems like the WCF is a product of the 16th and 17th Century, (the Pope as the anti-Christ comes to mind immediately). So what am I to do? Who is right?

This is a legitimate question. I am not being contentious.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

Search the Scriptures and then adhere to the one which adheres to the Bible. None of them are infallible, but they give you a fence.


----------



## PresbyDane (Feb 9, 2009)




----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Feb 9, 2009)

I hold to a harmony of the legitimately catholic and Reformed confessions. The Westminster Standards are my main reference, and the others interact with Westminster. I like to think of it as my confessional solar system: The Word of God is the Sun, with the planets in orbit (and harmony) are the solid, sound confessions of our forebears.

sjonee's advice is sound. My advice would be to learn from the saints of our faith and hold fast to the sources that fed them. _Ad Fontes_ (to the source) is a good motto to live by. Whatever sources fed the Great Ones of our faith are probably going to be good for us as well!


----------



## shackleton (Feb 9, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Search the Scriptures and then adhere to the one which adheres to the Bible. None of them are infallible, but they give you a fence.



That does not seem to be a sturdy foundation for a "_standard_." It then seems to be subjective.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2009)

shackleton said:


> ..., and this is a legitimate question, who's confession are we to follow? Everybody has one. Lutherans, some baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed etc. There are also different versions of confessions, it gets revised every so many years, some follow the 1643 others the 1646, then you have the RPCNA interpreting the confession one way and the OPC another. So, as a layman, who am I to believe? Each group is saying that the other either does not take it far enough or that they take it too far. Plus, there are may instances in which it seems like the WCF is a product of the 16th and 17th Century, (the Pope as the anti-Christ comes to mind immediately). So what am I to do? Who is right?
> 
> This is a legitimate question. I am not being contentious.



Erick,

I think it is important to think of a Confession as something that binds you to a Church, not a kind of intellectual _credo_. "Confession" actually means "we say together," and a confession is a church's statement about what the Scriptures teach and the (resulting) boundaries of communion. So it makes sense (for example) for the 1689 to differ from the WCF on certain points, because it delineates the differing boundaries of communion.

I would suggest that you search the Scriptures, search out a Church communion and then focus on the confession of that communion. I don't think you will be as satisfied to travel from Confession --> Church as you would be from Church --> Confession.

I hope that makes sense.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

shackleton said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > Search the Scriptures and then adhere to the one which adheres to the Bible. None of them are infallible, but they give you a fence.
> ...



Why would studying Scripture and comparing the confessions to it be subjective? If you study Scripture correctly by interpreting one Scripture with other Scripture which leds to an accurate interpretation, then you could compare what the confession states with what Scripture states. I didn't believe in paedobaptism until I searched the Scriptures and saw that it was the truth. A subjective stance would be to ask us to which confession you should adhere. I can tell you it should be the WCF...


----------



## Galatians220 (Feb 9, 2009)

If you can't, in good conscience, say "we say together" with _every_ point of a church's adherence to a particular confession, then can you compromise a bit and say to yourself, _well, this confession or that one I think is most Biblical, although I do disagree on some points, and I need to be a member of a sound congregation of the visible Body of Christ and so I will join this or that church and just shut up_...? Having come out from under the Baltimore Catechism, years ago, I concede that I do mightily resist being shackled to a confession w/i a church. This is a *huge* struggle for me. (I know which of the confessions/catechisms I can more easily accept...)

Margaret


----------



## ADKing (Feb 9, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> I would suggest that you search the Scriptures, search out a Church communion and then focus on the confession of that communion. I don't think you will be as satisfied to travel from Confession --> Church as you would be from Church --> Confession.
> 
> I hope that makes sense.



I am not trying to be contentious here either. But on what basis will one "search out a Church communion" if not on its purity as determined by some doctrinal standard derived from your understanding of Scripture?


----------



## shackleton (Feb 9, 2009)

sjonee said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> > sjonee said:
> ...



Pastor Greco put a good perspective on it, if it is an absolute standard then all confession would be the same, but if it is only a confession as to what a particular church believes then in can change from church to church but they should still agree on the important issues, the doctrines of grace.

-----Added 2/9/2009 at 12:42:59 EST-----



Galatians220 said:


> If you can't, in good conscience, say "we say together" with _every_ point of a church's adherence to a particular confession, then can you compromise a bit and say to yourself, _well, this confession or that one I think is most Biblical, although I do disagree on some points, and I need to be a member of a sound congregation of the visible Body of Christ and so I will join this or that church and just shut up_...? Having come out from under the Baltimore Catechism, years ago, I concede that I do mightily resist being shackled to a confession w/i a church. This is a *huge* struggle for me. (I know which of the confessions/catechisms I can more easily accept...)
> 
> Margaret



That is good. I am in a similar boat but under slightly different circumstances. Another point is, can the church deal with a person's particular differences or are they going to bring them up on charges?


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

shackleton said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > shackleton said:
> ...



Then you have your answer....go find a church you like and adopt their confession...seems backwards to me...just make sure the one you pick is according to Scripture...of course you will have to still study Scripture to make sure they are sound, which will let you know if their confession is sound....so you're still back to searching the Scriptures.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2009)

shackleton said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > shackleton said:
> ...



That depends on the church and whether or not it has confessional membership i.e. whether all members have to subscribe to the confession. The majority typically require the officers to subscribe to the confession and do not require members to affirm all of their doctrinal distinctives. Presbyterians traditionally have not had confessional membership whereas I understand the continental Reformed do have it. Some Baptist churches have confessional membership but most do not, although of course most self-consciously Baptist churches will require immersion. 

But if a believer strongly disagrees with some of the doctrinal distinctives (e.g. baptism issues or eschatology) that he doesn't necessarily have to affirm to join then he likely won't be happy there for long.

-----Added 2/9/2009 at 01:00:37 EST-----



ADKing said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > I would suggest that you search the Scriptures, search out a Church communion and then focus on the confession of that communion. I don't think you will be as satisfied to travel from Confession --> Church as you would be from Church --> Confession.
> ...



I don't want to presume to speak for Fred but I think the above advice may have been targeted to this particular situation. But if he was laying down general principles then I disagree as well, unless he was merely trying to guard against the tendency to try to find the perfect church and never settling anywhere at all. Better to join a church that preaches the gospel but that may have some different distinctives than you do than to just sit home and read the Puritans or the PB. 

Church--> Confession is how I ended up joining the OPC and joining the PB and starting a blog dedicated to Confessional Presbyterianism and berating Baptists off and on for 2 1/2 years. Although my struggle may not have been as prolonged as shackleton's, after a time I felt tremendous pressure (mostly internal, but some external) to finally join somewhere, and the OPC congregation was the least objectionable to me at the time for a number of reasons. At about the time that I began regularly attending the OPC congregation, I became convinced (or so I thought) of paedobaptism. (I knew I would never ultimately be happy there if I didn't agree on that issue as well as a few others. Jay Adams _Meaning and Mode of Baptism_ was all the convincing I needed at the time.) As we can see, that change ultimately proved to be temporary. After relocating a couple of years after joining the PB and reexamining the issue afresh from the Scriptures, I have more or less traveled from Confession-->Church, which seems to be a much better route from my perspective.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 9, 2009)

I totally agree with Fred.

Christianity is discipleship. It is not a self-discovery program where we discover the Truth independently and then find the Church that matches our Confessional convictions. Begin with a Church that clearly proclaims the Gospel of grace through faith and has Pastors/Elders committed to your growth in grace. Other things will fall in place with maturity. It's not about passing a "Confessional exam" but about confessing Christ and a solid Church is supposed to build up and encourage to that end and not simply be a collection of the fully convinced.

My experience is that the good Churches are good Churches with respect to Word, Sacrament, and discipline because they have mature men who are part of a Church that is larger than themselves and a Church that confesses what it believes of Christ clearly.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 9, 2009)

Pilgrim said:


> But if a believer strongly disagrees with some of the doctrinal distinctives (e.g. baptism issues or eschatology) that he doesn't necessarily have to affirm to join then he likely won't be happy there for long.



That depends on how mature the believer is. If he's mature enough to recognize that he's joining the church, with the understanding that he's in disagreement with some points of non-essential doctrine, then he ought to be willing to join in a teachable (after all, HE might be wrong) and humble manner and accept and submit to the leadership of that church. If he's begrudging the confession the whole time because of the point with which he disagrees, and it is a bone of contention with him such that he truly 'won't be happy', then a) the elders probably should never allow him to join in the first place, and b) if the peace of the church is disturbed by his disagreement with the church's confession, and if he was allowed to become a member, he should be disciplined for disturbing the peace. 

We all have minor points at which we disagree with the churches we're part of - some of these disagreements may hinge on confessional distinctives, some probably don't. In either case, as a member of a church, you take vows to uphold the purity and peace of the church. That means you submit to the elders, honor the confession, and learn - willing to change your own understanding if shown by Scripture and reason that the confession is correct, and you are wrong. 

If one is unable to approach things in this way, then they have no business joining (or being allowed to join) the church.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > But if a believer strongly disagrees with some of the doctrinal distinctives (e.g. baptism issues or eschatology) that he doesn't necessarily have to affirm to join then he likely won't be happy there for long.
> ...



Good thoughts, brother. Maturity is a key. One should not join unless it's with the orientation that you've outlined above. Looking back at my struggle to find a church several years ago, I realize I was sorely lacking in maturity in many respects and had a tendency to magnify the faults of a church and its leadership while in some instances perhaps not sufficiently recognizing their merits. At times, I would visit churches basically looking for reasons to rule them out. Church membership is important, but the process of searching for a church to join must undertaken in the right way. While most of the things I found objectionable in the Baptist churches there are things I would still find objectionable (and most here would agree, were I to list them), I realize that the better course may have been to join and work for change. Most of the problems and practices really had nothing to do with confessional differences, and few if any of them rose to the level of disagreement on the essentials. I also failed to visit several churches that I should have. I was probably still a "cage stager" to some degree, and I was overreacting to problems with the assembly I had left, which was "Calvinistic" but had no formal membership or even a statement of faith, which is why it took me a couple of years to find out what they really believed on some issues. 

While I probably wouldn't make the same choices today, I have to say that overall it was a valuable learning experience. Through joining the OPC, attending presbytery meetings in both the OPC and PCA and participating here and in other Reformed paedobaptist forums, I have been exposed to viewpoints that I may not have been brought face to face with otherwise, (certainly not in the depth that I have explored them) and overall the experience has served to strengthen my convictions.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 9, 2009)

One of the former professors at Westminster Theological Seminary (no, not Enns or Shepherd, and his reputation is excellent, and we heard this from somebody on staff at WTS) finally left and went to another Reformed Seminary because he was so troubled by people being told that if they could not with a clear conscience reconcile scripture and the confession, go with the confession.

That is just SO WRONG. The only canon is scripture, not any creed or confession. We say sola scripture and then make the confessions canon in our hearts. We'll say it isn't really canon, but emotionally we feel like it is.

We should be very reluctant to read the bible and decide that our interpretation is more accurate than all the great Reformers. It is humility and wisdom to be incredibly slow and cautious about taking exceptions, and taking exceptions must never ever be done lightly. And it probably ought to be done with a long look at commentaries on the Greek and Hebrew and the scripture context, because we may be misunderstanding something.

But in the final analysis, the only inerrancy and suffciency and pure truth is the canon, never any confession. 

***********

"But if a believer strongly disagrees with some of the doctrinal distinctives (e.g. baptism issues or eschatology) that he doesn't necessarily have to affirm to join then he likely won't be happy there for long."

I would say that is not true, the PCA is loaded with Baptists who are very happy. Our two best church experiences have been PCA as Baptists. You just appreciate that they see it as a covenantal circumcision sign and the baby isn't necessarily regenerated with saving faith, and they understand that baptists see it as the sign of regeneration and wait until evidence of faith. And you all get along great even if you don't agree. Our experience is that Baptists cannot handle Presbyterians in their churches well at all, especially when the battle starts where they insist the Presbyterian must be rebaptized. I'd say that unity with doctrinal disagreement is much easier to flow in among Presbyterians than Baptists on this. Even as a continuist in a cessationist environment we found there can be more REAL hunger for, and understanding of, the holy spirit than in some of the paedo-continuist churches we know of. So you can be real happy, as long as love and fellowship and God/Word centered preaching is there, and all bathed in prayer.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2009)

lynnie said:


> One of the former professors at Westminster Theological Seminary (no, not Enns or Shepherd, and his reputation is excellent, and we heard this from somebody on staff at WTS) finally left and went to another Reformed Seminary because he was so troubled by people being told that if they could not with a clear conscience reconcile scripture and the confession, go with the confession.
> 
> That is just SO WRONG. The only canon is scripture, not any creed or confession. We say sola scripture and then make the confessions canon in our hearts. We'll say it isn't really canon, but emotionally we feel like it is.
> 
> ...



The PCA is definitely loaded with former Baptists who in many cases retain their baptistic convictions. In the case of the baptists you mention in the PCA, in most cases I would surmise that they really don't "strongly disagree" with paedobaptism if they "appreciate" the paedo practice. (I will say that I definitely appreciate the PCA practice compared to views that explicitly state that infant baptism confers the new birth.) They (or you in this case?) may well disagree with the practice, but apparently do not disagree in the sense that I meant. In such cases, the baptists are satisfied if they are not pressured to have their own children sprinkled and if the PCA pastor will consent to immersing them after they profess their faith. Some Reformed ministers do not grant that degree of latitude. 

While the confessional Reformed churches often tend to demonstrate the practice of regenerate church membership (through the application of church discipline) better than the average Southern Baptist church does, a believer who holds strongly to the Baptist view of regenerate church membership is not going to be at peace in the PCA any more than a convinced Presbyterian is going to be at peace in a Baptist church that practices restricted membership (i.e. requiring immersion, or in other words requiring that church members be baptized from the Baptist point of view--no PCA will admit a member without meeting their standard of baptism either) and close communion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 9, 2009)

Let's keep this focused on the question at hand and not get too far afield in PCA/OPC/Southern Baptist distinctives.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 9, 2009)

> *shackleton*
> 
> ..., and this is a legitimate question, who's confession are we to follow? Everybody has one. Lutherans, some baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed etc. There are also different versions of confessions, it gets revised every so many years, some follow the 1643 others the 1646, then you have the RPCNA interpreting the confession one way and the OPC another. So, as a layman, who am I to believe? Each group is saying that the other either does not take it far enough or that they take it too far. Plus, there are may instances in which it seems like the WCF is a product of the 16th and 17th Century, (the Pope as the anti-Christ comes to mind immediately). So what am I to do? Who is right?



There are good inputs here, and I might only add...

Understand what a Confession of Faith is. It is a summary of doctrine contained in Scripture, subject to and subordinate to Scripture.

Many reformed churches will allow you to join as a member without having comprehensive knowledge of, let alone agreement with every particular of their Confession. As has been pointed out here, some require a vow they understand their confession and agree before being admitted as a member. In any case, you have an opportunity to attend and peaceably learn the church's doctrine.

Your priority ought to be to seek God as He has revealed Himself through Scripture. Any biblical reformed church will allow you to do that. In addition to that remember the place also of family worship and individual worship. As you use the "means of grace" (especially Word, prayer) you will grow in your understanding.

In the end, ask God for faith that you can understand what He has revealed through His Word.

I think you will find that the framers of all the great historic confessions (Westminster, London Baptist, 3 Forms of Unity) got an incredible amount right biblicaly and are in very much agreement with one another about the thrust of what God wants us to know, and even in the particulars. What's remarkable is how little they have changed at all, though time tested, among biblical reformed denominations.



> Hebrews 11:6
> 
> 6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> I would suggest that you search the Scriptures, search out a Church communion and then focus on the confession of that communion. I don't think you will be as satisfied to travel from Confession --> Church as you would be from Church --> Confession.



Reading this again, I'm not sure if I disagree with this as much as I did initially. I did think when I first read the post (at least what I initially understood Fred to be advocating) that it was a little out of character for Fred given some discussions we've had in the past. I would like for Fred to unpack this a little if time permits. It may just be me and my nitpicking ways, but I perceive some tension between the first sentence and the second one, but I think I may have zeroed in on the second sentence and missed the context of the first one. Or it may be that we are using Confession in different senses. The first sentence seems to suggest Confession-->Church, at least if you construe confession in a somewhat broad way. I'm using it here in the sense that B.H. Carroll meant when he wrote that 



> There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied.


In the first sentence, Fred suggests searching the Scriptures and searching out a church communion, apparently on the basis of which church appears to be the most faithful to the Scriptures and then embracing that church's confession to the degree that it lines up with Scripture, all in the context of having a teachable spirit, as Todd has noted. From my point of view, being a good Berean is really more Confession --> Church than it is Church --> Confession, given the understanding that I've outlined above. Searching the Scriptures is paramount and that's really my whole point with these posts. Otherwise we may end up visiting the local Word-Faith assembly or the liberal mainline congregation down the street and submitting to their "confession." If we don't search the Scriptures and evaluate churches and teachings on that basis, we have no standard by which to discern which ones are faithful and which ones have embraced heresy. 

An example would be of a pastor with whom I am familiar. He was raised in a Pentecostal denomination, went to Bible College, preached for several years, fell into a period of serious sin and was then converted. He went through a period of evaluation and intense study of the Scriptures. After recognizing the doctrinal problems with his old affiliation he eventually discovered that his understanding most closely lined up with what Baptists have historically believed. He has been a Baptist pastor for many years, although today as he has continued to search the Scriptures he holds some views on non essential issues that many "historic" Baptists would not endorse and he rejects a few views on non essentials that Baptists historically did confess. But nevertheless he is essentially within the mainstream of Calvinistic Baptist thought. If I recall correctly he realized he was closest to the Baptists when he read the Abstract of Principles. 

If a man sits in isolation, adopts a confession (whether its his understanding of one of the historic confessions or one of his own devising) and then goes about trying to find a church that holds to every jot and tittle of it, then he is likely going to be very disappointed and will tend to bear very little fruit. If this is what Fred meant by Confession --> Church, looking for the perfect church and refusing to join any that doesn't agree with us in every minute detail, then I agree. Most of us have encountered people who claim to be more Reformed than thou (or more historic Baptist than thou) but who can't seem to find a church in which they can join in good conscience, even anathematizing sound congregations with which they disagree on some minor point.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 9, 2009)

Also, understand that in reformed theology, a "creed" (confession) is so important because we understand the Scriptures to teach:

1) Unity of the church is grounded on doctrinal agreement
2) Christians are bound together by covenant to serve Him in this world


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2009)

shackleton said:


> ..., and this is a legitimate question, who's confession are we to follow? Everybody has one. Lutherans, some baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed etc. There are also different versions of confessions, it gets revised every so many years, some follow the 1643 others the 1646, then you have the RPCNA interpreting the confession one way and the OPC another. So, as a layman, who am I to believe? Each group is saying that the other either does not take it far enough or that they take it too far. Plus, there are may instances in which it seems like the WCF is a product of the 16th and 17th Century, (the Pope as the anti-Christ comes to mind immediately). So what am I to do? Who is right?
> 
> This is a legitimate question. I am not being contentious.



Yes, everyone has a confession, whether it's written or not. Instead of focusing on all of the Split-P's and comparatively minor issues like whether the pope is the Antichrist (no sound church is going to make that a point of fellowship) it seems to me that the best course of action is to prayerfully search the Scriptures, (and judiciously consulting some pertinent other resources along the way) determine as best you can what the Bible teaches regarding baptism, the Lord's Supper, soteriology, church government, etc. and then search out churches that seem to be the best fit. 

Most churches are not going to require confessional membership, although I understand many Lutherans, Dutch Reformed and a few Baptists will. If at some point in the future you find that you cannot submit to the confessional stance, then it is no crime to leave that church and join a sound church with which you agree more fully on baptism or some similar issue. Many of us here have done that, including some of the mods and admins. There is a right and honorable way to go about doing that as well, should it ever come to that point.


----------



## KMK (Feb 9, 2009)

Galatians220 said:


> If you can't, in good conscience, say "we say together" with _every_ point of a church's adherence to a particular confession, then can you compromise a bit and say to yourself, _well, this confession or that one I think is most Biblical, although I do disagree on some points, and I need to be a member of a sound congregation of the visible Body of Christ and so I will join this or that church and just shut up_...? Having come out from under the Baltimore Catechism, years ago, I concede that I do mightily resist being shackled to a confession w/i a church. This is a *huge* struggle for me. (I know which of the confessions/catechisms I can more easily accept...)
> 
> Margaret



As you know, husband and wife do not always agree on every jot and tittle. The important thing is for husband and wife to focus on those things in which they are united and ask for the sanctification necessary to come together on those things in which they disagree. AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, DON'T AIR YOUR DISAGREEMENTS IN PUBLIC! 

Joining a church is similar to joining in marriage. (Eph 5) Focus on those things in which you agree, pray for sanctification for all involved, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, DON'T AIR YOUR DISAGREEMENTS IN PUBLIC! 

(My zeal reflects an ongoing struggle I have in pastoring and is not directed at anyone here on PB)


Edit: I just realized I quoted Margaret's post by accident. My post was not directed at Margaret just so there is no confusion.


----------



## Galatians220 (Feb 9, 2009)

No one knows the nature of any differences I may have with any particular confession or catechism and no one will ever know them. Why? I might be wrong in harboring such a difference and as I recognize that, it would be patently foolish to let it be known. I am a member in good standing in a Westminster confessional church and intend to do everything I can to keep it that way. 

I have never aired any church disagreement in public, nor would I *ever* do such a thing. 

Margaret


----------



## shackleton (Feb 9, 2009)

Pilgrim said:


> While I probably wouldn't make the same choices today, I have to say that overall it was a valuable learning experience. Through joining the OPC, attending presbytery meetings in both the OPC and PCA and participating here and in other Reformed paedobaptist forums, I have been exposed to viewpoints that I may not have been brought face to face with otherwise, (certainly not in the depth that I have explored them) and overall the experience has served to strengthen my convictions.



This sounds exactly like me over the past 3 years. I am learning this now and hope to settle on a place.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2009)

I've been busy all day, but I will try tonight to reply to the questions asked of me.


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2009)

I don't think a dichotomy can be drawn between a confession to church or a church to confession model. In 1 John 2:12-14 we see different stages in the Christian life. A babe knows enough to know his sins are forgiven; a young man has learnt the art of spiritual warfare and how to combat the world; and a father is seeking to lovingly and prudently pass on his knowledge of God to others. Given such clear developmental stages, one might begin with the church community and there learn the confession, but may feel his doctrinal convictions are no longer suited to his communion, and therefore needs to move elsewhere. At that point he takes his confessional understanding and evaluates the ecclesiastical situation so as to see where he is best suited.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2009)

OK, let me try and unpack what I was saying a bit. 

*First*, I am not trying to pit the Confession against the Church. The Confession is an outgrowth of the Church. It is the Church that “confesses.” A Confession is not some kind of abstract ether that an individual tries to bottle and have the perfect Biblicism. That is why Confessions are products of their times. That is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. It allows Confessions to build on each other, and to see the key issues that are harming the people of God. The Westminster Confession, for example, is much more focused on refuting the errors of Romanism than we are today (at least in a Confessional and polemical way). Why is that? Is it because we are so much better than the divines? So much more refined? NO! It is because we stand downstream of the Westminster Confession, and we stand on the shoulders of the divines. The _very reason_ that polemics are not as obvious today is because they have already been laid out. You don’t need to search to find the differences between Romanist soteriology and Biblical soteriology – it is laid out for you in great detail in the Confession.

*Second*, I do realize that we judge the commitment of a church to the Bible through its confession. It is impossible to do otherwise! If you want to see if a church is Biblical, you must ask them what they believe. As soon as the church answers that question, you have a confession. (So much for the “no creed but Christ” folks, who really only have an _unwritten_ confession.)

*Third*, there is the practical matter to be considered. How does one choose a church? There seem two obvious routes: (1) I can study the various Confessions in private, determining which is the most “Biblical” and then after selecting one, I search out a church with that confession; or (2) I can participate in a church and study its doctrine (a confession!) in the context of the communion of the saints. Both approaches are imperfect, of course. But there is (in my opinion) an extreme irony in approach #1. The very person who would claim to be “confessional” and (hence) deny the absolute nature of private interpretation (the age old enemy of Confessionalism) expects to exercise the right of private interpretation in finding the “best” confession! After all, how are we to judge (properly) the best confession, except to compare its faithfulness in summarizing the Scriptures? So, in order to avoid private interpretation, we go totally in private and analyze the Biblical claims of a confession? I don’t think so.

*Fourth*, I realize that the process is a cyclical one. In other words, you can never (totally) divorce Confession and Church. Why would you want to? The Church makes its beliefs known through the Confession, and the Confession has no real meaning apart from the Confession. So the believer (and good Berean) will be continually testing the Confession by the Bible, and continually testing the Church by both its own Confession and the Bible. One might go from one Church A to Church B because Church B more closely adheres to the confession both Church A and Church B hold. Or one might move to Church C, _precisely because_ it holds to a different Confession from both A & B – and Church C’s Confession is judged to be more Biblical. The process can also work in the other direction – as a believer is convinced to change from a doctrine he holds that is contra-Confessional to one that is Confessional because of the influence and teaching of the church. For example, we see this all the time as (for example) believers are convinced of Sabbatarianism or the Third Use of the Law because they are convinced by the teaching of the Church and Scripture.

*Fifth*, many here would be aware of the difficulties and problems caused by lax doctrinal standards among churches. But there is another problem in the land as well. It is the tendency of churches to pretend that a “preaching station” or a “classroom” is a church. It is not. A church is a vibrant group of saints, partnering in the gospel (Phil. 1:4) persevering in holiness (1 Thess. 4:1-7), growing in both grace and knowledge (2 Peter 3:18), and living in humility and harmony (Col. 3:14). Where we see the beauty of God’s truth – and hence a Confession – is in the context of the Church. It is there (for example) that we see the beauty of the doctrine of the Fourth Commandment, or the doctrine of Assurance, or the Covenant. It is there that Biblical doctrine lives, because the Bible is not a mere set of propositions. It is much more. The Bible is truth, and propositions, but those propositions are *life changing*! You cannot come face to face with Biblical truth and leave unchanged. If you do, you are but a Felix, or an Amaziah (2 Kings 14:3, 6), who starts well, but ends badly (2 Chron. 25:14-16).

I am convinced that the Church (capitalization intended) does not need any more disembodied Lone-Ranger Supreme Court Justice wanna-bees (_pace_, Joe!) who stand aloof and in judgment of Confessions and churches. It needs real Christians, who search the Scriptures and test the nature of a Confession in the context of real people with real ministry. So what does that look like? The believer should make sure that a church carries the basic elements of a solid church (which are rare enough) : commitment to the Bible, to Biblical preaching, to fellowship, to evangelism, and to church discipline. A church should be willing to say (and stand up for!) what it believes. To start with a church is not to “go in blind.” Rather one must be willing to see the confession (i.e. the profession of truth) expressed and lived out in the covenant context. In this way, the believer will have his own presuppositions and predilections challenged (the old _“one anothers” _of Scripture), as well as see if the truth affects the lives of those who profess it. If he sees either that the church does not profess truth (orthodoxy), or that it does not live the truth it professes (orthopraxy) he will have to move on. But in that case, he had better be sure that *he* is professing AND practicing truth.

If we had Christians who took the truth, the mission and the community of the Church seriously, I believe the world would really have something to fear (and be attracted to!).


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2009)

A very well written post, Fred. I echo your concern that confessionalism be carried out with a commitment to the communion of saints, and that we all seek to grow to unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God by means of interaction and participation in each other's gifts and graces.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 9, 2009)

shackleton said:


> ..., and this is a legitimate question, who's confession are we to follow? Everybody has one. Lutherans, some baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed etc. There are also different versions of confessions, it gets revised every so many years, some follow the 1643 others the 1646, then you have the RPCNA interpreting the confession one way and the OPC another. So, as a layman, who am I to believe? Each group is saying that the other either does not take it far enough or that they take it too far. Plus, there are may instances in which it seems like the WCF is a product of the 16th and 17th Century, (the Pope as the anti-Christ comes to mind immediately). So what am I to do? Who is right?
> 
> This is a legitimate question. I am not being contentious.



One of the things the Westminster confession states is that all controversies of religion are finally appealed to the Bible in the original languages. In the OPC, while the confessional standard is there and it is expected that officers in the church subscribe to the system of doctrine contained in the standards, a charge is _never_ brought that an officer has violated the confession, but that they have violated the scriptures.

While people bind themselves together by affirming a confession, it is not that they do so to exclude the scripture. The idea is not to study the confession just to study the confession without regard to what the scripture states. The reason for the confession is to clearly state what a group believes the scripture to contain.

Suppose I were in an area in which I could not find a reformed faith Presbyterian denominational church ... but there were a reformed Baptist church. I would almost assuredly join with them, but knowing they do believe what they believe, it would be very divisive if I joined that church with the intent of being contentious over distintives, even though I believe they would be in error on those points. That they have stated "this is what we believe the Bible contains" and done so proactively, means for me they know the issues, and this is what we believe. While I disagree on some doctrines, I would remain silent on them while a member of such a church for the peace of the church.

So what do you do? Find a good confessional church, study the scriptures diligently with them. Find the best opponents of the positions which they take that are still fervent in the study of the Bible to see if they are correct in their view of those issues that are open to debate (there aren't many). If you cannot find a church that uses the confession that you believe reflects the scripture best, join with some other church that uses a confession that has the least conflict from what you believe (or help start a new church ... I've done that three times and it is a blast!)

Whatever you do, be charitable in all.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 9, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> *Third*, there is the practical matter to be considered. How does one choose a church? There seem two obvious routes: (1) I can study the various Confessions in private, determining which is the most “Biblical” and then after selecting one, I search out a church with that confession; or (2) I can participate in a church and study its doctrine (a confession!) in the context of the communion of the saints. Both approaches are imperfect, of course. But there is (in my opinion) an extreme irony in approach #1. The very person who would claim to be “confessional” and (hence) deny the absolute nature of private interpretation (the age old enemy of Confessionalism) expects to exercise the right of private interpretation in finding the “best” confession! After all, how are we to judge (properly) the best confession, except to compare its faithfulness in summarizing the Scriptures? So, in order to avoid private interpretation, we go totally in private and analyze the Biblical claims of a confession? I don’t think so.



Many of our spiritual forefathers believed in private interpretation while acknowledging the floodgate of evil that would come with it. I know Luther certainly did and Calvin alludes to it in his Institutes. I know that if I had not searched the Scriptures for truth I would have fallen for unbiblical churches. I had my doctrine (except for paedobaptism and Sabbatarianism) established before I found the PCA (which I didn't like but I think it was that particular church) and then ultimately the OPC of which I am currently a member. If I read a church's confession and have learned Biblical doctrine first, then I can see the church's errors and stay away from that church.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2009)

sjonee said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > *Third*, there is the practical matter to be considered. How does one choose a church? There seem two obvious routes: (1) I can study the various Confessions in private, determining which is the most “Biblical” and then after selecting one, I search out a church with that confession; or (2) I can participate in a church and study its doctrine (a confession!) in the context of the communion of the saints. Both approaches are imperfect, of course. But there is (in my opinion) an extreme irony in approach #1. The very person who would claim to be “confessional” and (hence) deny the absolute nature of private interpretation (the age old enemy of Confessionalism) expects to exercise the right of private interpretation in finding the “best” confession! After all, how are we to judge (properly) the best confession, except to compare its faithfulness in summarizing the Scriptures? So, in order to avoid private interpretation, we go totally in private and analyze the Biblical claims of a confession? I don’t think so.
> ...



Sarah,

Neither Luther nor Calvin believed in private interpretation apart from the Church. I am not suggesting that someone pick a church at random and start there. The Christian should be reading the Bible and be ready to ask questions, even if he does not have all the answers yet. And when at a church, the Christian should _continue_ reading his Bible and test what is being taught.

The question really boils down to: what is the best way to test doctrine? By hearing teaching from the Church and actively engaging with that teaching in the context of community and personal Bible study, or holing up in a corner with a Bible to figure everything out?


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 10, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



I don't think we are quite understanding one another. That could easily be my fault as I don't articulate what I want to say very well many times. I'll try again. Both Luther and Calvin came out of the Catholic doctrine and gave us the Protestant truths we now hold dear because they did study Scripture and interpret it coming to the conclusions we now see. Do we call that private interpretation? I think we do. Do we call private interpretation hiding in a hole without any outside influence upon our thinking? I don't think so and didn't mean to make that impression. But we often read Scripture and decide what is right about such and such confession. Many here do that concerning baptism. That is all I was saying and encouraging Shackleton to do. Hope that is more clear. Also, just in case I am still not making sense, here is a quote from Sproul who always makes sense and is what I'm trying to say.



> Anytime new Christians read the Bible for themselves, they risk distortion. One of the great articles of faith of the Reformation was the principle of private interpretation, that is, every Christian was seen to have the right to read the Bible for themselves. The Roman Catholic Church resisted that because they recognized that an unschooled and untrained person could very easily come to serious misunderstandings and distortions of Scripture. They warned, for example, that letting the laymen read the Bible could open a floodgate of iniquity. Luther responded to that by saying, yes, a floodgate of iniquity could be opened by unskilled people. That is why God has put teachers in the church. But he also said the basic message essential for every Christian to understand was so clear, so manifest, that a child could understand it. It is so important and so worthwhile that if it risks the opening of floodgate of iniquity, Luther said, so be it.


 R.C. Sproul, Now That’s A Good Question!


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 10, 2009)

Sarah,

I think I am just attempting to clarify what you said, not refute it. There is a difference between:

(a) reading the Bible for oneself and coming to conclusions while in the context of a covenant community and (b) reading the Bible for oneself in isolation and coming to such conclusions.

By "isolation" I don't mean "by yourself" but rather being intentionally separate from the church ("I don't do church" or "I'll never join a church" or "I don't see the importance of church") That is because it severely handicaps a person in their study of the Bible to not be in a church, experiencing doctrine in the midst of teaching, fellowship and others. It would be like running a race with active asthma (in my opinion).

I hope that clarifies.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 10, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> I am convinced that the Church (capitalization intended) does not need any more disembodied Lone-Ranger Supreme Court Justice wanna-bees (_pace_, Joe!) who stand aloof and in judgment of Confessions and churches. It needs real Christians, who search the Scriptures and test the nature of a Confession in the context of real people with real ministry. So what does that look like? The believer should make sure that a church carries the basic elements of a solid church (which are rare enough) : commitment to the Bible, to Biblical preaching, to fellowship, to evangelism, and to church discipline. A church should be willing to say (and stand up for!) what it believes. To start with a church is not to “go in blind.” Rather one must be willing to see the confession (i.e. the profession of truth) expressed and lived out in the covenant context. In this way, the believer will have his own presuppositions and predilections challenged (the old _“one anothers” _of Scripture), as well as see if the truth affects the lives of those who profess it. If he sees either that the church does not profess truth (orthodoxy), or that it does not live the truth it professes (orthopraxy) he will have to move on. But in that case, he had better be sure that *he* is professing AND practicing truth.
> 
> If we had Christians who took the truth, the mission and the community of the Church seriously, I believe the world would really have something to fear (and be attracted to!).



Your whole post was remarkably well-written and articulated Fred. I think you and I were seeing eye to eye on your first post so certain things go unsaid for me even though I know what you mean.

If anything, the above is what drives me most nuts about the way men and women approach spiritual growth.

God has been very gracious in some dark and hard Providences with me to teach me some important lessons about the nature of His Church. One of the reasons I am Confessionally Reformed and Paedobaptist is because I believe the Scriptures are abundantly catholic in their tenor that an obsession for "getting it individually right" can often distort. I'm very much against any kind of attempts toward obvious or subtle schism within the body of Christ because we're on a program of discovering the perfect Church or we're committed to a theology that the Church is going to consist of pristine, proper "regenerate" people just like us and none else.

The visible Church is messy business just like real families are. One of the most dangerous things is a theologian who is not involved in the life of the Church. I simply do not have respect for any theology that speaks of God in the abstract in His attributes and other theological truths that cannot understand how complicated "real history" is because people separate themselves from current history by thinking of God and Church but never getting involved in the messy lives of those that the Church consists of.

There's certainly always the danger of focusing only on "life transformation" and "social welfare" in your theology and allowing it to become too immanent but that's not usually the problems I read about here. Usually what I read is a bunker or ghetto mentality that sees the Church as going to pot and so we've got to find the few people left that haven't compromised on any point of orthodoxy.

Now, I'll admit that I'm sometimes guilty of being strident but more so in the past. Again, part of that was having a "I've got my theology straight and so I'll suffer these souls around me that keep offending God because that's the best I got right now" attitude. Then, one day, God humbled me and made me realize that it was a privilege to teach and help those around me that were ignorant of these things and didn't offend God wantonly but because they knew no better. I learned that good theology is winsome because it is good news. Yes, it needs to be fierce against wolves but the sheep can't forget you love them too when you're putting your body between the wolves and the sheep. Part of the reason I'm so strident now is that I've seen what bad theology does to sheep. It's not that it personally offends me as much as I see how destructive it is and I always think of real people that I love that are affected by bad doctrine.

I tried to provide a simple guide above for a person that doesn't have the details figured out: look for a Church that excels in Word, Sacrament, and discipline. I believe the third part is always viewed as simply harsh or corrective but, for me, it means leadership that is committed to the growth of the people.

I certainly agree that Confession matters because it's what we confess that defines a Church but I also know that there's really no such thing as a Church that excels in Word, Sacrament, and discipline that doesn't have a good Confession.

The bottom line is to "bloom where you are planted" for now. Think of the fellow baptized as those that you need to strive with and encourage to believe upon Jesus Christ. It changes your whole outlook. It doesn't mean that you'll stay with that congregation if you come to a later time where your convictions and doctrinal understanding go but my firm opinion is that a person will never grow straight if he can't even love the Saints at the state he finds himself in right now. If a person doesn't desire to bless the Saints that he's in and among _today_ then I don't believe he can do any better than to focus on love of the Saints right now rather than focusing simply on "personal growth" so that the local Church is just one more disposable instrument to self-actualization.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 10, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> I am convinced that the Church (capitalization intended) does not need any more disembodied Lone-Ranger Supreme Court Justice wanna-bees (_pace_, Joe!) who stand aloof and in judgment of Confessions and churches. It needs real Christians, who search the Scriptures and test the nature of a Confession in the context of real people with real ministry. So what does that look like? The believer should make sure that a church carries the basic elements of a solid church (which are rare enough) : commitment to the Bible, to Biblical preaching, to fellowship, to evangelism, and to church discipline. A church should be willing to say (and stand up for!) what it believes. To start with a church is not to “go in blind.” Rather one must be willing to see the confession (i.e. the profession of truth) expressed and lived out in the covenant context. In this way, the believer will have his own presuppositions and predilections challenged (the old _“one anothers” _of Scripture), as well as see if the truth affects the lives of those who profess it. If he sees either that the church does not profess truth (orthodoxy), or that it does not live the truth it professes (orthopraxy) he will have to move on. But in that case, he had better be sure that *he* is professing AND practicing truth.
> 
> If we had Christians who took the truth, the mission and the community of the Church seriously, I believe the world would really have something to fear (and be attracted to!).



 and  I could write much more, but it would basically just be repeating what you've said here. 

-----Added 2/10/2009 at 11:21:19 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> The bottom line is to "bloom where you are planted" for now. Think of the fellow baptized as those that you need to strive with and encourage to believe upon Jesus Christ. It changes your whole outlook. It doesn't mean that you'll stay with that congregation if you come to a later time where your convictions and doctrinal understanding go but my firm opinion is that a person will never grow straight if he can't even love the Saints at the state he finds himself in right now. If a person doesn't desire to bless the Saints that he's in and among _today_ then I don't believe he can do any better than to focus on love of the Saints right now rather than focusing simply on "personal growth" so that the local Church is just one more disposable instrument to self-actualization.



Rich, 

This is so true. If a man doesn't desire to bless the Saints that he's in and among _today _then something is wrong and he needs to take the beam out of his own eye. (And I've definitely been there.) And as I'm sure you can attest, the truest "personal growth" comes in that context, focusing on blessing, loving, encouraging, exhorting, teaching (if that is your calling) the Saints within the context of the church.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 10, 2009)

> *What is Reformed Theology?
> Dr. R.C. Sproul
> p. 55*
> 
> One of the great legacy of the Reformation is the principle of _private interpretation_. [italics in original] The Reformation effectively put the Bible into the hands of the laity...The right of private interpretation means that every Christian has the right to read and interpret the Bible for himself or herself. This does not give an individual the right to misinterpret or distort the Bible.



Dr Sproul goes on to say


> The Reformation established a crucial rules of hermeneutics for interpreting the Bible. Perhaps the most crucial or central rule is the _analogy of faith_.



He goes on to describe how this led to all kinds of false and erroneous interpretations, but quoting Luther, says that risk is worth it.

Not to presume upon what Sara was saying here about "private interpretation," but it seems we all can see the benefit we have to be bound by a confession, though it does not cover everything, and is not intended to. Some things are left to individual interpretation with aid of those God has gifted to teach and lead in His Church.

This is why it is of such benefit to have, and such a unifying factor to have a time-tested confession of faith!


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 10, 2009)

This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith, whereby you are to be fettered, but as an assistance to you in controversy, a confirmation in faith, and a means of edification in righteousness. Here the younger members of our church will have a body of divinity in small compass, and by means of Scriptural proofs, will be ready to give an account for the hope that is in them. Be not ashamed of your faith; remember it is the ancient gospel of martyrs, confessors, reformers and saints. Above all, it is “the truth of God”, against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail. Let your lives adorn your faith, let your example adorn your creed. Above all live in Christ Jesus, and walk in Him, giving credence to no teaching but that which is manifestly approved of Him, and owned by the Holy Spirit. Cleave fast to the Word of God which is here mapped out for you.

- Charles Spurgeon, in his preface to the 1689 London Baptist Confession


----------

