# Poll: Where do you stand?



## Matthew1344 (Aug 9, 2014)

I opened this up because I want to have a better understandings of the confessions. I want to study them from most popular to least popular. 

Also, I am sure, i did not do this right and that some of these go together and shouldnt be separate. If that is the case, feel free to fix my mistake and help me out! 

Thanks guys! All of you and this board is such a blessing! 

Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminster Confession of Faith (with American Revisions)
Belgic Confession
Heidelberg Catechism
Canons of Dordt
1689 London Baptism Confession of Faith
The Second Helvetic Confession
Apostle's Creed
Nicene Creed
Athanasian Creed
Definitions of Chalcedon


----------



## Tim (Aug 9, 2014)

Your poll question is vague. 

What, exactly, do you wish to know? It is possible to affirm several of these at the same time and some are more comprehensive than others. What do you mean by popularity? Every single person on this board affirms the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed, for example.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 9, 2014)

I can't pick just one.

Apostles Creed
Nicene Creed
Athanasian Creed
Definitions of Chalcedon
The Second Helvetic Confession
Westminster Confession of Faith (with American Revisions)
Belgic Confession
Heidelberg Catechism
Canons of Dordt


----------



## Jack K (Aug 9, 2014)

I like some better than others, but affirm the majority of those in the list. Some that I'd say I affirm I do with a few exceptions, though, which I consider minor but which some people might consider material.

All this makes your poll too tricky to answer because the poll only allows one selection. Many of these necessarily come in groups, especially when used in the context of affirming agreement with the teachings of a particular church.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 9, 2014)

Why not study them in chronological order?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 9, 2014)

It would probably have been better to have dropped the early creeds from this poll. I would assume that everyone here agrees with the dogmas of the church catholic as expressed in these creeds. Also, some people here _agree with_ the Three Forms of Unity and other Reformed confessions, but _own_ the Westminster Confession as the confession of _their_ faith (or, to put it differently, it is the Confession of Faith that their ecclesiastical bodies require them to confess). So, a person could agree with both the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession, but only the latter is, strictly speaking, the confession of his faith.


----------



## Jake (Aug 9, 2014)

Dordt, Heidelberg, and Belgic are often confessed together, often called the 3 Forms of Unity, by the Reformed denominations.

Some denominations, such as the Heritage Reformed Congregations and the Reformed Congregations of New Zealand, confess the 3 Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards.

Creeds such as Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian are confessed by all of orthodox Christianity, including confessors of the other creeds you listed.


----------



## PaulMc (Aug 9, 2014)

I know it's a revision of the Westminster Confession, but no Savoy Declaration on your list?


----------



## Jake (Aug 9, 2014)

PaulMc said:


> I know it's a revision of the Westminster Confession, but no Savoy Declaration on your list?



It's not an option for membership on the board here.


----------



## psycheives (Aug 9, 2014)

I agree that many of us hold to most of the above creeds & confessions. If the poll allowed us to check 5 at once, it would work.  I'd hold to almost everything except a couple points on LBC.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 9, 2014)

Jake said:


> PaulMc said:
> 
> 
> > I know it's a revision of the Westminster Confession, but no Savoy Declaration on your list?
> ...



It should be, really and truly, if 2LBCF is allowed then Savoy is every bit as legitimate. Had never realised that before (mods, this is not a criticism, just a surprised realisation!)


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 9, 2014)

Not to beat the dead horse too much, but creeds and confessions are not all exclusive, rather many of them are inclusive. 

*Ecumenical/Catholic Creeds of the Church Universal*
Apostles' Creed
Nicene Creed
Athanasian Creed

Chalcedonian Definition - also generally accepted by the church universal (until recently)

*Confessional Lutheran*
The Book of Concord (including the Augsburg Confession)

*Reformed (mainly European) *
Three forms of Unity - Canons of Dort, Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession

*Reformed Presbyterian *
The Westminster Standards

*Calvinian Baptist*
1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742)

*Confessional . . . *
Lutherans "believe, teach, and confess" the ecumenical creeds + the Book of Concord
The Reformed accept the ecumenical creeds + subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity
Presbyterians accept the ecumenical creeds + subscribe to the Westminster Standards
Calvinian Baptists accept the ecumenical creeds + subscribe to either the 1689 or the 1742

Reformational Christians generally express great appreciation for all of the documents listed above, even while acknowledging some disagreements on points, and only being "bound" by the confession that their group subscribes to as authoritative.

Theology aside, I consider the Westminster Standards to be the most intellectually satisfying statement of faith in the last 500 years. The Heidelberg Catechism is the most pastorally satisfying, in my opinion.

How can you top this?

Q. What is your only comfort
in life and in death?
A. That I am not my own,
but belong—
body and soul,
in life and in death—
to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,
and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.
He also watches over me in such a way
that not a hair can fall from my head
without the will of my Father in heaven;
in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.
Because I belong to him,
Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
assures me of eternal life
and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready
from now on to live for him.


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 9, 2014)

See signature


----------



## py3ak (Aug 9, 2014)

The live options for formal subscription are mostly:

Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dort)
Original Westminster Standards
Westminster Standards, Revised or with Additions
Baptist Confession of 1689

Because many denominations only require officers to subscribe, it is possible that a member somewhere may find a different document personally more amenable; but talking about PB demographics, these are the confessional documents that have constitutional authority within the denominations most widely represented here.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 9, 2014)

I hold to no creed. I believe what I want to believe in light of my own experience. I know not where I came from or where I am going. I know nothing of the languages or history or theology, but I am self-appointed to be my own arbiter of all truth. I respect no authority nor do I submit to any. I am my own priest. I am Emergent. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 9, 2014)

Or, as my old family, the American Baptists, used to say: "We have no creed but the New Testament."

One Baptist (a progressive Southern Baptist) put it this way:



> Baptists do not recite the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed or any of
> the other creeds of the larger church. The reason underlying this strikes at the
> foundation of who we are as Baptists. This is yet another place where our forefathers
> and mothers nailed down a stake. As Baptists, we accept no creeds except the Bible.
> ...



Er . . . ah . . . well . . . a little historically myopic aren't we? The 1689 and the 1742 were pretty darn specific confessions, modeled in large part after the Westminster Standards in fact. And, until unitarianism swept the New England landscape, failure to hold to the confession of 1742 (Or the New Hampshire, etc.) was grounds for discipline. So much for that stake nailed down by forefathers and mothers.

The really GREAT irony in all of this is that you will hardly find a more unbiblical group of people (more precisely, a more biblically revisionistic bunch) than some of the mainliners in non-creedal denominations who eschew all creeds but the Bible!


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 9, 2014)

Tim said:


> It is possible to affirm several of these at the same time and some are more comprehensive than others....Every single person on this board affirms the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed, for example.


I didnt know that 


Pilgrim said:


> Why not study them in chronological order?


Great idea!


Jake said:


> PaulMc said:
> 
> 
> > I know it's a revision of the Westminster Confession, but no Savoy Declaration on your list?
> ...





DMcFadden said:


> Q. What is your only comfort
> in life and in death?
> A. That I am not my own,
> but belong—
> ...


YES YES YES  

Sorry for the confusing poll. You guys have helped me learn alot! And I know alot of you guys are probably wondering "How can this guy say he holds to a confession and open up a thread like this?"

Well, my story is that i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is. I know I didnt up until about 11 months ago. I met this guy at Starbucks that is a calvinist and he told me to read the WCF, so I did. 

I loved it! I didn't understand it all, but I had the study guide version by GI Williamson so that helped a ton. And when things were still tough to understand, even after I read GIW part, I would get on google and try to figure it out. It was almost instantly I stumbled upon PuritanBoard. So I made an account and when I joined I put WCF because as much as I understood, I believed it (all except infant baptism). But I didnt think that was a big deal. Now I am stating to see that it is kind of a big deal if you dont agree with the whole confession. So as of now I am reading the LBCF and comparing it to the WCF and trying to land somewhere. I really want to land on a confession. And you guys have helped me so much tying to understand what I believe. This site has been a definite blessing from God.



Gforce9 said:


> I hold to no creed. I believe what I want to believe in light of my own experience. I know not where I came from or where I am going. I know nothing of the languages or history or theology, but I am self-appointed to be my own arbiter of all truth. I respect no authority nor do I submit to any. I am my own priest. I am Emergent. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!


Is this a joke?


DMcFadden said:


> The really GREAT irony in all of this is that you will hardly find a more unbiblical group of people (more precisely, a more biblically revisionistic bunch) than some of the mainliners in non-creedal denominations who eschew all creeds but the Bible!


Thats is definitely ironic!


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 9, 2014)

I'm glad no one declared holding to the Osteenian Positive Confession.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 10, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> Baptists do not ...
> This is yet another place where our forefathers and mothers nailed down a stake.
> As Baptists, we accept no creeds except the Bible.
> That is, our final authority for faith and practice is not words about the Bible; it is the Bible itself.



Clearly there is a confessional and practical identity, even for Baptists of this stripe; and one that can be expressed in phrases that are not Biblical phrases....


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 10, 2014)

Jake said:


> PaulMc said:
> 
> 
> > I know it's a revision of the Westminster Confession, but no Savoy Declaration on your list?
> ...



can anybody elaborate on this, as to the reasons, it would be interesting to know, any older, founding or admin members care to give reasons?
I was of the thought that the Savoy would be very similar to the Baptist Confessions, paedo-baptism excepted of course!


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 10, 2014)

Jake said:


> Dordt, Heidelberg, and Belgic are often confessed together, often called the 3 Forms of Unity, by the Reformed denominations.
> 
> Some denominations, such as the Heritage Reformed Congregations and the Reformed Congregations of New Zealand, confess the 3 Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards.
> 
> Creeds such as Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian are confessed by all of orthodox Christianity, including confessors of the other creeds you listed.




I'm a member of the Reformed Church of Dunedin, part of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand. Yes, we do affirm both the Three Forms of Unity as well as the Westminster Confession. The RCNZ was started by Dutch immigrants who felt that the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand wasn't Reformed enough (they are quite liberal now).

We also affirm the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed (although I've never seen the Athanasian Creed recited in church).


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 10, 2014)

Quote Originally Posted by Gforce9 View Post

I hold to no creed. I believe what I want to believe in light of my own experience. I know not where I came from or where I am going. I know nothing of the languages or history or theology, but I am self-appointed to be my own arbiter of all truth. I respect no authority nor do I submit to any. I am my own priest. I am Emergent. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!

Is this a joke?

Matt,
This was my feeble attempt (as demonstrated by the response) at humor. I was giving a hearty poke at the younger generation of pop-evangelicals coming up who have divorced themselves from history (including Creeds and Confessions), systematic and biblical theology, and come with a self-proclaimed "blank slate" to the table. In reality, they are deceived into thinking they come to the Bible without biases, which is proof positive of Original Sin, which many deny. 
Please forgive my deviation from the seriousness of the OP.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 10, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> can anybody elaborate on this, as to the reasons, it would be interesting to know, any older, founding or admin members care to give reasons?



I think it is simply because hardly any church nowadays holds to the Savoy. If John Owen were to apply and mark "other" in his application, mentioning the Savoy as his confession, I'm sure he'd be approved for membership.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Aug 10, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > can anybody elaborate on this, as to the reasons, it would be interesting to know, any older, founding or admin members care to give reasons?
> ...



Good to know that John Owen would pass muster here! ;-)


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 10, 2014)

Reagan,

Yeah, I think that the administrators might find Owen within the bounds of orthodoxy. 

Actually, Victor was engaging in a little tongue in cheek, inside baseball, humor. Thomas Goodwin and John Owen were the most notable members of the committee of six divines appointed to draw up the Savoy Declaration in October of 1658. It was an attempt to tailor the Westminster standards to fit a congregational context.

One of my resources in WordSearch is a parallel WCF, 1689, and the Savoy. It is quite interesting to see the few places where the 1689 and the Savoy materially depart from the theology of the WCF (most notably in sacramentology and church government).


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 11, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > can anybody elaborate on this, as to the reasons, it would be interesting to know, any older, founding or admin members care to give reasons?
> ...



it occurred to me afterwards that America had in actual fact originally been settled by Congregationalists or Independents if you will!


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 11, 2014)

Gforce9 said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Gforce9 View Post
> 
> I hold to no creed. I believe what I want to believe in light of my own experience. I know not where I came from or where I am going. I know nothing of the languages or history or theology, but I am self-appointed to be my own arbiter of all truth. I respect no authority nor do I submit to any. I am my own priest. I am Emergent. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> ...



Ha, no need for apologies. I seriously had no idea if it was a joke or not. You didn't offend 



reaganmarsh said:


> Good to know that John Owen would pass muster here! ;-)


funny!


DMcFadden said:


> One of my resources in WordSearch is a parallel WCF, 1689, and the Savoy. It is quite interesting to see the few places where the 1689 and the Savoy materially depart from the theology of the WCF (most notably in sacramentology and church government).


Thanks for the heads up. I will keep my eye out for when i get to these parts.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 11, 2014)

My apologies if this has already been listed. These pages should be quite helpful in comparing the confessions: 

Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF

Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF (Notice that the 1689 LBCF is often derived from or closer to the Savoy where the Savoy and the WCF differ.)

You may find these sites to be of use on the 1689: 

http://www.1689federalism.com/

http://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/

[url]https://www.facebook.com/groups/reformedbaptist/
[/URL]


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 11, 2014)

Good to see that the original Westminster Confession is currently out in front; the old wine is usually the best.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 11, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Good to see that the original Westminster Confession is currently out in front; the old wine is usually the best.


Daniel, as a fellow Northern Irishman, I would encourage you to read Luke 5:38 "But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins." 

You can interpret the new wine as the 1689 Baptist Confession. God decreed before the foundation of the world that it would replace the old wine.


----------



## Edward (Aug 11, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> it occurred to me afterwards that America had in actual fact originally been settled by Congregationalists or Independents if you will!



I don't think that's what King James had in view in his Charter to the Virginia Company " We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government: DO, by these our Letters Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 12, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Daniel, as a fellow Northern Irishman, I would encourage you to read Luke 5:38 "But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins."
> 
> You can interpret the new wine as the 1689 Baptist Confession.



As is evident from your exegesis of Luke 5:38, Kiwis know little of either good wine or good theology; I would stick to playing rugby.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 12, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel, as a fellow Northern Irishman, I would encourage you to read Luke 5:38 "But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins."
> ...



Excellent!


----------

