# Additional areas you would like see addressed in the confessions - and sample drafts



## Pergamum (Sep 22, 2008)

On several other threads this has been floated:




_*Areas I'd like to see addressed in the Confession:

Relationship of Confessional churches to those of other beliefs.

Statement on the Lordship Controversy (of course, there are already chapters on Saving Faith and Repentance Unto Life, but I think it might be possible to amend or add to them in such a way that they speak clearly to the problems created by Chafer/Ryrie/Hodges/Wilkin.)

Family and gender issues

Evangelism and Missions*_





What other areas would you like to see added?


Furthermore, if you had to write a draft of what would be a representative view for the reformed or the reformed baptist, please submit it here.


----------



## vagabond (Sep 22, 2008)

Well, this list was drafted by my best friend in college (you reading, Charlie?)...and I'm pretty much in agreement. I would especially like the last, "Evangelism and Missions."

Doctrine of the Holy Spirit may be relevant, as well. 

What do you think of the PCUS 1903 emendation which follows? The EPC has adopted it; to my knowledge, no others have, though some have adopted chapter 34 on the Holy Spirit. Some say that this chapter 35 embraces Arminianism. However, I really like point 35.4.



> CHAPTER 35
> 
> Of the Gospel of the Love of God and Missions
> 
> ...



You can find this, and chapter 34 on the Holy Spirit, here.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 22, 2008)

More in-depth teachings on the apographs of Scripture.


----------



## yeutter (Sep 22, 2008)

The Church needs an expanded statement on Biblical inerrancy and the nature and extent of Biblical authority. Maybe the Church should just adopt the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
Two recent confessional statements of faith have been attempted by Churches in Southeast Asia. In Indonesia, Dr. Stephen Tong's group, which I think is called the Gereja Reformed Injili Indonesia, has an additional confessional statement besides the three forms of unity. The Evangelical Reformed Church of Singapore, a congregation related to the Protesant Reformed Churches, wrote their own statement of faith back in the 1980s.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 22, 2008)

I would want something a bit better than the Chicago statement.



> We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that *copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original*.


To say that copies are the Word of God to the extent that they represent the original, which doesn't exist, really doesn't say much for our copies.

I would love to see something more definitive regarding the copies. We are unable to compare them to the original, yet they are what we have in hand, so let's try a bit harder to make a definitive statement on them.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 22, 2008)

Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 22, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
> Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse



There are a few things that may cross the line in Chap 35. John Murray did believe in the free offer to all men (if I remember correctly) but the language in Chap 35 seems to say that the Holy Spirit is calling any who hear the Word, which is certainly arminian. 

Thanks for the link to Murray's critique by the way. As Murray said, Chap 35 definitely errs in not distinguishing between the general love of everyone and God's love for His elect (2 very different things).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 22, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
> ...


Yes; see Matthew Winzer's review of the Murray/Stonehouse view of the Free Offer at the link below.

http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner9-10&12.pdf


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 22, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
> Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse



Interesting! Thanks.


----------



## Casey (Sep 22, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
> Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse


Bad link.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 22, 2008)

It was working earlier; may be a Yahoo Groups things; my file originally so see my new PB blog entry,
Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse - The PuritanBoard


CaseyBessette said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
> ...


----------



## vagabond (Sep 22, 2008)

Despite necessary rewritings of points 1-3 of chapter 35 to avoid the intentional inclusion or unintended implication, whichever it be, of Arminian teaching, I think that point 4 is well stated.

I would also like to see a clear section on the role of the Mosaic law.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 22, 2008)

No revisions, expansions, clarifications, or any other changes can or should be made to the WCF. For to posit such a need would be to suggest that the WCF is imperfect, in as much as it would be an admission that it doesn't articulate everything we need to know about God from the Bible. And as many of this site's best have pointed out, the Confession is so true, and so faithful to Scripture, that for the Confession to be inadequate would be the same thing as saying the Scriptures are inadequate. 

So all of you wanting to expand or clarify or (whatever) the Confession: REPENT!


----------



## MW (Sep 22, 2008)

A confession can be a unifying asset or a divisive liability. Additions without consensus will undoubtedly make it divisive.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 22, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> A confession can be a unifying asset or a divisive liability. Additions without consensus will undoubtedly make it divisive.



Seems to me that a confessional statement is inherently both unifying and divisive at the same time. It serves to rally and unify those who are in agreement while serving as a bone of contention with regards to those who disagree.


----------



## vagabond (Sep 22, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *SolaScriptura*:
> for the Confession to be inadequate would be the same thing as saying the Scriptures are inadequate



I was tempted to take this as a joke. That doesn't sound like "Sola Scriptura" to me.

The Bible contains what we need to know about God. The WCF sums it up. A summary of the Scripture is, by definition, inadequate as an expression of what God wants us to know. This isn't to say it's bad or even mediocre! To the contrary, the WCF is a great summary. But it's just that -- a summary.


Oh, by the way *important*: my last post wasn't referring to revising the original confession, but chapter 35, which isn't actually in the WCF as we have it here on PB. It's an addition considered to be tainted by Arminianism. I was saying that its inclusion would require rewriting.


----------



## MW (Sep 22, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> Seems to me that a confessional statement is inherently both unifying and divisive at the same time. It serves to rally and unify those who are in agreement while serving as a bone of contention with regards to those who disagree.



Carry out this idea consistently over a range of issues, as is addressed in a confession, and the only rallying will be the head of the home calling his family to join with him in maintaining his particular interpretation of Scripture.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
> Articles on the 1903 Revisions of the Confession of Faith by Murray and Stonehouse



Got another link. Or just Google it?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> A confession can be a unifying asset or a divisive liability. Additions without consensus will undoubtedly make it divisive.



Brother,that is an EXCELLENT point!

Every extra sentence added thus becomes another hurdle that could trip up people who would like to sign onto the confession. 

So, there does seem to be a virtue in keeping confessions purposely broad and simple it seems.


I guess another question then would be, "If we could throw out any portion of the confession" which would it be. But onceit is written, then it is written and binding, but folks are free to vary somewhat in the realm of the unwritten.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> _*Areas I'd like to see addressed in the Confession:
> *_



1. The propriety of the name Pergamum.

2. Whether we should unleash such named persons on the (un)civilized world.

3. Whether or to what extent such persons belong on the internet.

4. The nature, character, degrees and purpose of such a name.

I have a suggested reading:

"We, the synod of PB, being paedo, credo, pre-, post-, mid-, a- and other mils, holding to exclusive psalmody and psalmody in exclusivity, immersing, sprinkling, fire-hosing, and otherwise getting people wet, with moderators, intimidators, administrators, gators, and other -ators, hereby hold it to be anathema, approved, blessed and cursed to be named Pergamum. Such persons be worthy, and yet unworthy to be in the civilized and uncivilized (including partially civilized areas of the internet, such as PB). Such Pergamums (Pergys, Pergses, Pergos) do and do not belong on said internet, and the nature, character, purpose and degrees of such a Perg is both incomprehensible and yet fully understood, being a mystery, and a good and necessary consequence, and a symbolically syllogistic, story-type Clarkian categorical, and yet VanTillian at heart."

 How'd I do? 

Any takers?

Tongue-in-cheekly yours,


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 23, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me that a confessional statement is inherently both unifying and divisive at the same time. It serves to rally and unify those who are in agreement while serving as a bone of contention with regards to those who disagree.
> ...



That's rather disingenious to note. Interestingly, this is essentially what my "anti-confessional" evengelical friends say why any confessional statement is bound to fail.

No, you are wrong. You may think that the original WCF is this beautiful thing that only rallies together. But you're missing the obvious, which is that at the very same time, it divides. 

I'm sitting here, even now, looking at a picture from the Assembly celebrating the independents' objection to the presbyterians. And what did they do after the Assembly went with a presbyterian Confession? Being excluded (which is what the WCF does), they went out and came up with the Savoy. 

Write profound seeming quotes all you want, but the simple true fact is that the WCF and Catechisms cover a LOT of theological territory, and practically and historically, indeed by nature, the WCF - just as any Confessional statement - unifies and divides simultaneously.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > A confession can be a unifying asset or a divisive liability. Additions without consensus will undoubtedly make it divisive.
> ...




His point was NOT excellent. His point was naive. 

Any confession both unifies and divides. The answer, as you allude, to minimize the dividing that it does, is to keep it simple and broad and general. This is precisely the route of many evangelical denominations in our day. Take for instance the EFCA's website. With only a handful of points, it leaves a lot more room for personal thought than does something like the WCF.

But I don't see things like theological or confessional minimalism as a plus.


----------



## Herald (Sep 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> On several other threads this has been floated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Our church is floating the idea of position papers. Instead of amending the confession we can add position statements on various teachings that creep up from time to time.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > _*Areas I'd like to see addressed in the Confession:
> ...




You forgot Pergster, Pergmeister and Pergalicious as optional names.


Also, add something about the dreaded bane of theonomy while you're at it!


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > On several other threads this has been floated:
> ...





Cool, I'd like to see some of those!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 23, 2008)

See post above.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/add...d-confessions-sample-drafts-37789/#post469740


Pergamum said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an article by Dr. Stonehouse and John Murray on the 1903 revsions (Murray says chp 35 is not reformed).
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I am with an evangelical group that has a doctrinal statement that is solid on the essentials but makes a point of granting some leeway on more minor issues so that more folks can work under their tent.

What is the difference between being purposely non-specific or non-dogmatic on secondary issues and being "minimalistic"? I could serve on a mission field with a premil, amil or postmil - am I just being wishy-washy and pragmatic again or is such "minimalism" to be also considered a virtue in some broad efforts?



I do grant your point that every doctrinal statement unifies AND divides. We just have to figure out if the issues are worth dividing over. I for one would not divide with a man if he disageed with the WCF that the Pope was THE Antichrist, for instance. Not major enough to bother with for what I am doing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 23, 2008)

Ben,
The WCF is not what divided the Independents from the Presbyterians; it was the form of government they disagreed with; neither did the catechisms divide them. The WCF and Catechims were truly consensus documents. The Savoy was created 10 years later after unity was already failed. Blame Cromwell or any number of factors; but it wasn't the WCF and catechism(s) (only the shorter of which was authorized in England; the times caught up to the LC as well which was never approved by Parliament). 


SolaScriptura said:


> I'm sitting here, even now, looking at a picture from the Assembly celebrating the independents' objection to the presbyterians. And what did they do after the Assembly went with a presbyterian Confession? Being excluded (which is what the WCF does), they went out and came up with the Savoy.


----------



## YXU (Sep 23, 2008)

vagabond said:


> > Originally Posted by *SolaScriptura*:
> > for the Confession to be inadequate would be the same thing as saying the Scriptures are inadequate
> 
> 
> ...



The Directory for Public Worship contains a lot of material regarding how to pray for the lost and for the conversion of sinners.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 23, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> You forgot Pergster, Pergmeister and Pergalicious as optional names.
> 
> 
> Also, add something about the dreaded bane of theonomy while you're at it!





Yeah, the synod both condemns, approves, and throws men overboard, and promotes them to captain for that plague or a blessing 

Perganator is a favorite of mine, being from Kah-lee-fow-nee-yuh.

I'll be baaaahhhck....


----------



## MW (Sep 23, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> I'm sitting here, even now, looking at a picture from the Assembly celebrating the independents' objection to the presbyterians. And what did they do after the Assembly went with a presbyterian Confession? Being excluded (which is what the WCF does), they went out and came up with the Savoy.



I'm not sure where you obtain your information from, but this is fiction. The Assembly did everything it could to accommodate these independently minded brethren. They went out of their own accord. Nor is there anything in the Confession which in and of itself excludes these brethren, because there is no statement relative to synods which could not be applied to the Westminster Assembly that they fully participated in. Further, the Savoy was not a reactionary document but was the result of a power shift.


----------



## MW (Sep 23, 2008)

I just noticed this after I wrote my reply. Thankyou, Chris.



NaphtaliPress said:


> Ben,
> The WCF is not what divided the Independents from the Presbyterians; it was the form of government they disagreed with; neither did the catechisms divide them. The WCF and Catechims were truly consensus documents. The Savoy was created 10 years later after unity was already failed. Blame Cromwell or any number of factors; but it wasn't the WCF and catechism(s) (only the shorter of which was authorized in England; the times caught up to the LC as well which was never approved by Parliament).
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 23, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> That's rather disingenious to note. Interestingly, this is essentially what my "anti-confessional" evengelical friends say why any confessional statement is bound to fail.



Disingenuous? I think you should concern yourself with the discernible content of posts, and leave the motives of the heart to the Lord.

I'm not sure what your "anti-confessional" evangelical friends have to do with our discussion, where presumably we are both committed to seeing the church openly proclaim what it believes to be the truth. Beginning with the church's duty to confess its faith, it should be obvious that the church proceeds on the basis that "We believe and therefore speak." A confession is no place for settling perennial problems.

As for your idea that the confession unifies and divides, the statement is unacceptable because a confession does not divide in the same sense that it unifies. It unifies by intention, but any division it causes cannot be purposeful. The church never declares the truth with the specific intention of producing ill effects. Further, it would only manifest a division which already exists, whereas a confession can serve as a genuine means to produce unity. For these reasons I think your statement is ill-advised.


----------

