# Confessionalism



## Coram Deo (Aug 17, 2007)

Given the nature of confessionialism and how important they are to the visible church on Earth, how far can one take exceptions on one's confessionial stance aleast within the pales of orthodoxy? Is all the chapters of our confessions e.g. westminster, 1689, 3 forms, etc. vital or are there less vital chapters?


----------



## Herald (Aug 17, 2007)

Michael - confessional agreement is something to question _before_ and not after subscribing to a confession. But does that mean we must agree in lock-step? Are there any areas in which we can have polite disagreement? Possibly. But if we are using a strict definition of what it means to be confessional, disagreement of any kind would counter our claims to be confessional.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 17, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Michael - confessional agreement is something to question _before_ and not after subscribing to a confession. But does that mean we must agree in lock-step? Are there any areas in which we can have polite disagreement? Possibly. But if we are using a strict definition of what it means to be confessional, disagreement of any kind would counter our claims to be confessional.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 17, 2007)

> But does that mean we must agree in lock-step? Are there any areas in which we can have polite disagreement?



While I agree with the sentiments expressed above, I wonder "which areas may we have disagreement in and why those?"


----------



## goretorade (Aug 17, 2007)

I don't know where you can find it but there is an awesome essay about confessionalism and old-school thought on it by Dr. John Fesko. I believe it was in the ETS Journal...


----------



## goretorade (Aug 17, 2007)

"The Legacy of Old School Confession Subscription in the OPC," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46/4 (2003), pp. 673-98.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 18, 2007)

I have thought for some time that perhaps a very practical way to determine what is "exceptionable" in a sense that taking an exception would not cause a problem in pursuing ordination, or seeking a change of presbytery, etc., would be to take those points that the Reformed confessions are agreed upon. If Westminster and Heidelberg, etc., all agree then it is not exceptionable. If there is divergence between them, then it's still "within the pale". Note that this is not a historical claim: it is a suggestion for a practical litmus test as to the centrality to the Reformed system of any given doctrine.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 18, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Given the nature of confessionialism and how important they are to the visible church on Earth, how far can one take exceptions on one's confessionial stance aleast within the pales of orthodoxy? Is all the chapters of our confessions e.g. westminster, 1689, 3 forms, etc. vital or are there less vital chapters?



All the chapters are important because they represent a complete system of doctrine. They are doctrinal statements building logically upon the doctrinal Creeds of the Church long before, yet responding from the same Scriptures to new heresies and trials in a new day . But remember the Confession does allow some wiggle room. There are many statements in the Confession which are left deliberately ambiguous because there was disagreement among the divines over that issue. For instance, you won't find "active and passive" obedience but instead "sacrifice and obedience" which can be read either way by both parties. "General equity" is another buzz term which had a diversity of meaning among the divines. Same with the infra vs. supra debate. The Confession reads infra, yet it is worded in such a way that a supra could also agree to it. They all agreed there were some necessary language and concepts which fenced an issue but the finer details could be left open for differences of opinions so long as they didn't compromise the overall system of doctrine. 
There will probably come a day soon when a new Confession will have to be drafted as certian issues are forcing us to be more precise and strict in our theological language in order to articulate and defend the gospel. The older wiggle room is being exploited to undermine the overall system of doctrine (i.e. imputation, covenant of works, "in the space of six days" etc.). But something like that would be difficult to do.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 18, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> But remember the Confession does allow some wiggle room.



I'm a strong believer in confessionalism. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's problems. One of these is of course "wiggle room". That is, most of the confessions will come down on points that reformed believers are free to disagree over (_adiaphora_). Hence, the problem is that if we go by a "100% must agree" approach then we force some people out over _adiaphora_, which is a great shame. What we need is a confession or the like that helps us gauge how central or peripheral a theological issue may be.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 18, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > Given the nature of confessionialism and how important they are to the visible church on Earth, how far can one take exceptions on one's confessionial stance aleast within the pales of orthodoxy? Is all the chapters of our confessions e.g. westminster, 1689, 3 forms, etc. vital or are there less vital chapters?
> ...



I think it would be impossible to do. The first question would be: who's going to do it? You'd have about a decade's worth of battles right there!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2007)

The only exception to the Confession that I take is to the section that implies you can take exceptions.


----------

