# Time For a New Reformed Confession?



## ken.kang-hui

If you haven't read it, go to Rev. Jason Stellman's blog, Creed Code Cult, and check out his latest post. There he argues for rewriting our Reformed Confessions. I posted a comment arguing why it might make sense, particularly at this time in the PCA.


----------



## Scott1

It's easy to say that a time-tested 350 year old standard needs to be re-written. That somehow we have a superior collective wisdom and selfless focus in our generation. That our generation has a broader consensus than the imperiled, very focused one that God used to produce our historic Confessions.

I don't think the state of the church in this generation bears that out.

Also, unless someone spells out the specific sections they disagree with, the discussion is meaningless.

The problem in our generation is not much that the Standards are unclear- it is that playing with the meaning of words, words losing their meaning has become an art form in our generation. And that men, do not want to be bound to their holy vows. 

We have the same thing going on with the PCA Book of Order. A very few want to disobey the clear instruction of that constitution with regard to 'deaconess.' First claiming lack of clarity, alternately claiming need for superficial change to it, then major re-write to accommodate another (narrow) view. 

Those who say provisions like this are "unclear," and need to be re-written,

Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order
CHAPTER 7
Church Officers-General Classification



> In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.



will not be satisfied until the re-write is something ambiguous or says the opposite.

Neither furthers the peace and purity of the church, which is to be defended for His Honor and His Glory from all challenge in every generation.

None of this is a sign of integrity, spiritual maturity, nor need to re-write.

If anything, it's a call for more accountability, lest God's people stray.


----------



## P.F.

Stellman's proposal is more honest than those who continue to try to claim that they subscribe to the standards while believing less and less of them. It's still a terrible idea (as Scott has pointed out), but it's more honest than undermining the standards while claiming to support them.


----------



## Scott1

Taking the Confession of Faith lightly, or the vows that uphold them, or vows taken to receive and uphold a denomination's constitution, vows to pay debts, marriage vows- all are taken quite seriously by our God, though men imagine and rationalize otherwise.

The only enforcement mechanism is the one the gentleman who wrote the blog is going through. With sinners all, it can be a difficult process. But it is the responsibility before God, particularly of those called as officers, and sometimes that requires suffering. But, we are told to lay up treasure in heaven.


> Matthew 6
> 
> 19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
> 
> 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
> 
> 21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.


 It is not in vain at all.

God will judge vow breakers,



> Ecclesiastes 5
> 
> 4When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
> 
> 5Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.


 those who distort the meaning of words to justify their own disobedience. We have His Word on it.

Our call is to be truthful, do right in His sight, and be faithful with the imperfect people, situations, and mechanisms He appoints for us.


----------



## jwithnell

I suppose such a move would be more honest for many congregation, though it would be a sad day indeed. Where do you suppose churches would go if they decided to leave the PCA. If churches currently strive to uphold the WCF standards, where would they best fit?


----------



## jayce475

"Rayburn’s point in bringing up these kinds of statements from the Westminster Standards is to point out that hardly any ordained PCA minister actually believes them, and yet very few have taken an exception to them before their presbyteries. Does this not demonstrate how low our regard is for our church’s official teachings?

Setting aside the fact that Rayburn does not believe Leithart’s teachings to be in conflict with the Standards (a point about which we strongly disagree), I do think he makes an interesting point. Why should we have confessions or catechisms that contain loads of statements that we all agree are not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine? Why include “in the space of six days” if it can be disagreed with? Why affirm that Paul wrote Hebrews if none of us really believes he did? Why say that the Bible frequently calls the covenant a testament if the claim is false on its face? Why forbid images of Jesus of Nazareth if virtually every children’s Bible or Sunday School curriculum violates this?"

This part of the blog is disappointing. So, is this reverend claiming that majority of PCA's ordained ministers don't agree with 6/24 creation, that Paul did not write Hebrews, that the new covenant is not a testament and that violations of the second commandment ought to be acceptable? And yet for the sake of wanting to maintain their ordinations, they claim to subscribe to the confessions without making their exceptions public? I really hope it isn't so.


----------



## Marrow Man

Perhaps someone needs to instruct Mr. Rayburn (and perhaps Mr. Stellman as well) as to what a _tu quoque_ fallacy is.


----------



## P.F.

Regarding this: "Why include “in the space of six days” if it can be disagreed with? Why affirm that Paul wrote Hebrews if none of us really believes he did? Why say that the Bible frequently calls the covenant a testament if the claim is false on its face? Why forbid images of Jesus of Nazareth if virtually every children’s Bible or Sunday School curriculum violates this?""

Where in the PCA's standards does it claim that Paul wrote Hebrews? Here's a link to their version of the confession: 

http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapi-v.htm

Like the 1646, it does not claim Pauline authorship of The Epistle to the Hebrews.


----------



## TimV

> While I’m feeling bold, I’ll go further even still: the Reformed churches need a new confession that can be subscribed to by all of us, thus effectively putting an end to the need for the PCA, the OPC, the URC, and other Reformed denominations that have no good reason to remain separated from one another.



There's no reason to stop there. Why not make it a truly ecumenical confession if (and he really does, if you read carefully) Stellman would allow certain Catholics to marry one of his parishioners?

As a side note, after reading Rev. Winzer's piece on the use of perfect obedience rather than whole obedience in the WLC and the history behind the change, if I were Rayburn et. al.. I'd hammer the SJC's ruling against Leithart on the point of Christ's active obedience being salvic, just to play mind games with the other side. That while trolling through tapes of anti FV advocates looking for things like Paul not being the author of Hebrews and opening cases against them. 

What a mess.


----------



## Marrow Man

The more I think about this, this really really bothers me. It's bad enough that you have folks like Rayburn and Leithart saying this sort of thing; that's almost to be expected to some degree. But to have Stellman agreeing with them? Consider Q. 112 and the mention of God using "lots" to make himself known. Is it really true that we have this plethora of Reformed ministers (or at least ministers in the PCA) who deny this? Do they not realize the numerous biblical texts they would have to deny or object to or painfully qualify in order to do this? What do they do with passages like Proverbs 16:33; Isaiah 34:17; the division of the land under Joshua; the selection of Zacharias in Luke 1; or the selection of Matthias in Acts 1?


----------



## Grillsy

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that someone could be disciplined for holding these beliefs.
If we really believe the article then the majority of the PCA are denying large and important aspects of the Confession. 
Apparently, according to the blog, it is widely accepted to be unequally yoked and have icons in that presbytery.


----------



## Wayne

Tim, you make excellent points. I think you need to wander over to Jason's blog and make a comment or two.

Personally, I don't think either this or the rising generation are up to the task. When men start spending twelve and sixteen hours a day in their studies, when they exhibit a depth of biblical knowledge comparable to the Westminster divines and especially when moral purity, humility and reverence rises to a high level, then perhaps we will see men capable of drafting the confession they claim we need.


----------



## greenbaggins

I think it is interesting and somewhat revealing that no one is seeking to revise the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed. The problem as I see it is that we have seen a shift in perspective on how doctrine progresses. The way it actually progresses is that gradually, over time, various loci of doctrine receive more and more definitive treatment from the church. As that area of doctrine gets nailed down, attention focuses on other areas. However, what we are seeing now is that there has been a shift in perspective. No longer are we thinking about a progression in doctrine that goes deeper, but rather a progression in doctrine that shifts sideways. This is the problem. I have zero problem with making new confessions, although Wayne's points are well-taken here. But they should be confessions of faith that operate within the Reformed confessions that we already have, not ones that seek to undermine or shift doctrine sideways.


----------



## Scott1

jwithnell said:


> I suppose such a move would be more honest for many congregation, though it would be a sad day indeed. Where do you suppose churches would go if they decided to leave the PCA. If churches currently strive to uphold the WCF standards, where would they best fit?


 
I'm not familiar with the gentleman on the blog.

I do not see the broad situation of congregations crying out for a re-write of the Confession, rather, I see people hungry for the clarity and awesome challenge to their lives that the Confessions/Standards bring.

Rather, as ordinary discipline works its way, as God guides it, certain things are being called out. This is its purpose, for the peace and purity of His Church. There are many denominations that have little or no doctrinal accountability, where the words and vows have lost their meaning. But, what a fearful place to go to, particularly for one held to the higher standard that God calls teachers of His Word to.


----------



## P.F.

Lane Keister wrote: "I think it is interesting and somewhat revealing that no one is seeking to revise the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed."

You're mistaken about that.

There's a push from folks who want to revise the meaning of the second line of the Apostles' Creed ("maker of heaven and earth") to embrace the heresy of theistic evolutionism;

There's a push from many folks to remove the phrase "he descended into hell;" and

There's a push from EO and sympathizers to remove (or restore the omission of) the double procession of the Spirit from the Nicene creed.


----------



## greenbaggins

PCFLANAGAN said:


> Lane Keister wrote: "I think it is interesting and somewhat revealing that no one is seeking to revise the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed."
> 
> You're mistaken about that.
> 
> There's a push from folks who want to revise the meaning of the second line of the Apostles' Creed ("maker of heaven and earth") to embrace the heresy of theistic evolutionism;
> 
> There's a push from many folks to remove the phrase "he descended into hell;" and
> 
> There's a push from EO and sympathizers to remove (or restore the omission of) the double procession of the Spirit from the Nicene creed.



I'm sure you are correct about that. However, is this happening in Reformed circles? Plus, I seriously doubt that those changes will actually be made, except in maybe one denomination per change desired.


----------



## Zenas

> Why include in the space of six days; if it can be disagreed with? Why affirm that Paul wrote Hebrews if none of us really believes he did? Why say that the Bible frequently calls the covenant a testament if the claim is false on its face? Why forbid images of Jesus of Nazareth if virtually every children’s Bible or Sunday School curriculum violates this?



He asks the wrong question and incorrectly concludes we need to change the Confession to fit our beliefs. Rather, we should be questioning our beliefs and changing them to comport with the Confession, as they are a systematic expression of what we know to be true. If our teachers are not prepared to forsake graven images of Christ or the notion of an old earth, they need to be shown the door.

This gives me cause for concern. I will begin seeking a new church in December and the only other Reformed Presbyterian demonination in the area is the PCA. His statements remind me that not many share the belief that an image of Christ is a commandment violation. Granted, not many share my beliefs regarding the Sabbath, but that doesn't infringe on me. They may do as their conscience provides and so may I. However, giving my son coloring books filled with supposed pictures of Jimmy the Shepherd is something I won't tolerate and gives me cause for concern.


----------



## P.F.

"I'm sure you are correct about that. However, is this happening in Reformed circles? Plus, I seriously doubt that those changes will actually be made, except in maybe one denomination per change desired."

I've heard Reformed people talk about not liking the "descended into hell" phrase. But, those creeds are not part of the standards of my denomination, the OPC - nor are they part of the standards of the PCA (as far as I know). So, it would presumably not even be necessary for any change to be done on a denominational level for those in the Westminster family of churches.

I'm not sure about those following the three forms (which does include the Pauline authorship of Hebrews claim). They would be in a position to make revisions (either in terms of meaning - as with the theistic evolution issue - or in terms of wordings). I'm not sure whether any have.

But yes, revision of standards is typically done on a denominational basis in denominations, and on a congregational level in congregational churches.


----------



## Marrow Man

With regard to the "He descended into hell" phrase in the Apostles' Creed, If I recall correctly the historical nature of that phrase has been debated (with regard to origin of the phrase, whether it should read "Hades" or "the dead" etc.). I used to have major problems with the phrase, but this is actually one of the areas in which the Westminster Standards (specifically, the WLC) are extremely helpful:



> Question 50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?
> 
> Answer: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.


----------



## Theoretical

ken.kang-hui said:


> If you haven't read it, go to Rev. Jason Stellman's blog, Creed Code Cult, and check out his latest post. There he argues for rewriting our Reformed Confessions. I posted a comment arguing why it might make sense, particularly at this time in the PCA.


 
I do agree that it is a more honest approach to amend the confessions rather than run roughshod over numerous sections that aren't "popular." That doesn't mean it SHOULD be done; rather, efforts should be made to encourage greater confessionalism and unity in the church for the standards there.


----------



## Zenas

Theoretical said:


> ken.kang-hui said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you haven't read it, go to Rev. Jason Stellman's blog, Creed Code Cult, and check out his latest post. There he argues for rewriting our Reformed Confessions. I posted a comment arguing why it might make sense, particularly at this time in the PCA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree that it is a more honest approach to amend the confessions rather than run roughshod over numerous sections that aren't "popular." That doesn't mean it SHOULD be done; rather, efforts should be made to encourage greater confessionalism and unity in the church for the standards there.
Click to expand...

 
Due to the anonymity of the "thumbs up", discussed elsewhere, I will point out that I found this post helpful. (And pad my post count.)


----------



## P.F.

"I used to have major problems with the phrase, but this is actually one of the areas in which the Westminster Standards (specifically, the WLC) are extremely helpful:" 

Yes, although it should be noted that the Westminster Standards and the Three forms interpret that expression differently.


----------



## Marrow Man

PCFLANAGAN said:


> "I used to have major problems with the phrase, but this is actually one of the areas in which the Westminster Standards (specifically, the WLC) are extremely helpful:"
> 
> Yes, although it should be noted that the Westminster Standards and the Three forms interpret that expression differently.




Fair enough, and I would also add that Calvin interpreted the phrase differently. But we are specifically talking about the confessional standards of Presbyterianism here. It is the confessional standard of Mr. Rayburn, Leithart, and Stellman (PCA). It is also the confessional standard for your own denomination (OPC) as well as mine (ARP). And furthermore, it is the "default" confession for this Board.


----------



## P.F.

"It is the confessional standard of Mr. Rayburn, Leithart, and Stellman (PCA). It is also the confessional standard for your own denomination (OPC) as well as mine (ARP). And furthermore, it is the "default" confession for this Board."

Agreed. And, by the way, I do agree with it. I was simply pointing out that Calvin and the Continentals use the expression to mean one thing, and we use it to mean something else.


----------



## SolaScriptura

greenbaggins said:


> I think it is interesting and somewhat revealing that no one is seeking to revise the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed.


 
That's probably because while they are cherished, they aren't official doctrinal standards of our church. People don't kick against goads they aren't feeling. 

But as it were, I've been to a number of PCA churches where these creeds will be read/recited and minor adjustments are made.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I agree that there is a fundamental problem when we say we believe something and then allow an entire host of exceptions to be taken, by a great many ministers and churches (if not the majority!). To my simplistic mind, we either believe it to be true or we don't. If we do, then enforce it. If we don't, then quit giving lip service to believing it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I know this is off topic just a bit but Danny Hyde's book is excellent on this topic. PCFLANAGAN and Pastor Tim should get a copy. In Defense of the Descent « Heritage Booktalk

I have no problem with a language or updated confession as long as it lines up with what the Divines meant and with the idea that the original thoughts of the divines are consulted for defining what is being said. 

Well, I just say let's keep them the way they are. If anyone wants to redo them let them start their own assemblies and become schismatic.


----------



## Curt

To change the confessional standards because few embrace them (as has been suggested) is the same as sociological law. If people won't abide by a law, don't hold them to the law, change it. For instance, homosexual marriage and abortion.


----------



## torstar

SolaScriptura said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is interesting and somewhat revealing that no one is seeking to revise the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's probably because while they are cherished, they aren't official doctrinal standards of our church. People don't kick against goads they aren't feeling.
> 
> But as it were, I've been to a number of PCA churches where these creeds will be read/recited and minor adjustments are made.
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I agree that there is a fundamental problem when we say we believe something and then allow an entire host of exceptions to be taken, by a great many ministers and churches (if not the majority!). To my simplistic mind, we either believe it to be true or we don't. If we do, then enforce it. If we don't, then quit giving lip service to believing it.
Click to expand...

 


+1

Part of converting to this faith required the acceptance of documents that I would not have agreed to 10 years ago.

It's a time to keep my trap shut about what I don't feel comfortable (or intellectually fulfilled) with and study and learn from the Word and the confessions.

If you have to be convinced about every word, phrase, and clause in the confessions you will never get anywhere.

There's an exit door as well.


----------



## py3ak

Understanding the Confession we have seems like a very obvious first step before taking steps to revise or even update it, much less make a new one.

Rayburn's point may well be valid. It ought to be remembered that Finney claimed no exceptions to the Confession as far as he understood it - though if I recall correctly he hadn't actually read it! So it is certainly possible that a lot of people subscribe to the Confession the way you click "I agree" on your latest software update, reflexively, without any thought. But that's a fault in the seminaries, not forcing students to engage seriously with the background to the Confession, with documents that help explain what they meant like Dickson's commentary or Turretin's _Institutes_; and it's a fault in the churches not teaching at least those men who are pursuing office about the nature and importance and value and content of the Confession.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Rewriting? Never. Adding? Maybe. If there are any updates to be made, it should be in the way of clarifying further or addressing concepts relevant to the church today, like abortion, the charismatic movement, etc., and it can in no wise take away from our current confession. That is, unless you are able to prove that a part of it is not founded on Scripture, which is highly unlikely.


----------



## Marrow Man

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I know this is off topic just a bit but Danny Hyde's book is excellent on this topic. PCFLANAGAN and Pastor Tim should get a copy. In Defense of the Descent « Heritage Booktalk


 
Yes, thanks for the recommendation. I have downloaded the radio interview with Rev. Hyde where he discusses the book, but haven't listened to it yet. Having said that, I highly doubt either side would greatly disagree with either assertion that Jesus endured the hellish pain in suffering the wrath of God upon the cross (as with Calvin and if I am reading Q. 44 of the HC correctly) or that He really was dead (and therefore under its power) in the period between the crucifixion and the resurrection (per the WLC). What we seek to avoid (at least speaking for myself) is some Kenneth Copeland-esque idea of Jesus continuing to be tormented in the abode of the wicked. OTOH, I think there is a genuine fear among others that taking out the phrase may be reflective of theological liberalism which denies the existence of such a place.

There is another concern I have that is more directly applicable to the discussion of this thread. I heard in some corners that even in Reformed circles we need to adopt a less restrictive standard (read: minimalistic) such as the Apostles' Creed. We had this suggested in our own presbytery. The minister who raised the concern stated that the "strictness" of the WCF discouraged people from being members of his congregation. So he wanted to lower the membership requirements to affirming something simpler, such as the AC.

I, of course, argued against it on the floor of presbytery. While the AC is a fine creed, there are certain areas of doctrine it does not address. It makes no statement about Scripture, justification, etc. In short, a _Roman Catholic_ could agree with it. The measure was roundly defeated in the presbytery (I'm not sure anyone besides the minister voted in favor of it). That minister, btw, is now in the CREC.


----------



## Zenas

You eventually recede to a point where you're no longer retaining any of the distinctive doctrines that make one a Presbyterian. I'm pleased such a measure failed not because we should retain our distinctives because they define us, but because we should retain them because they're true and that ought to define us.


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

Gents,

I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.

But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed, as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway), and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.

Cheers,

JJS


----------



## Zenas

I would be very interested in reading further.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Gents,
> 
> I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.
> 
> But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed, as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway), and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> JJS


 
Instead, why don't we just quit allowing exceptions to be taught in the churches? This should never be happening.


----------



## Scott1

Comment below



Willem van Oranje said:


> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gents,
> 
> I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.
> 
> But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed,
> It seems that there really are not new heresies, nor new serious doctrinal error really. We have old ones, repeated with different packaging. They seem new to us, but in substance, they are really the same as those of old.
> as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway),Different denominations have different ways of dealing with exceptions, scruples. We would need to see the list of exceptions that are broadly granted across the presbyteries to see what, if any, we are talking about. and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.
> It seems though, this is precisely the pretext for calling for this- is it not?
> Also, if the exceptions are being granted by everyone anyway, why not go through the Amendment process?- the Standards can be amended through a deliberative process.
> Cheers,
> 
> JJS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, why don't we just quit allowing exceptions to be taught in the churches? This should never be happening.
Click to expand...

 Historically, Presbyterianism has allowed "scruples" and I think for good reason. I'm not sure of a better mechanism than thorough scrutiny by a spiritual jury of peers of exceptions with a high level denominational overview.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Scott1 said:


> Comment below
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gents,
> 
> I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.
> 
> But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed,
> It seems that there really are not new heresies, nor new serious doctrinal error really. We have old ones, repeated with different packaging. They seem new to us, but in substance, they are really the same as those of old.
> as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway),Different denominations have different ways of dealing with exceptions, scruples. We would need to see the list of exceptions that are broadly granted across the presbyteries to see what, if any, we are talking about. and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.
> It seems though, this is precisely the pretext for calling for this- is it not?
> Also, if the exceptions are being granted by everyone anyway, why not go through the Amendment process?- the Standards can be amended through a deliberative process.
> Cheers,
> 
> JJS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, why don't we just quit allowing exceptions to be taught in the churches? This should never be happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historically, Presbyterianism has allowed "scruples" and I think for good reason. I'm not sure of a better mechanism than thorough scrutiny by a spiritual jury of peers of exceptions with a high level denominational overview.
Click to expand...

 
But not to be taught in the churches, though. A "scruple" allows a man to be ordained despite his exception. It does not allow him to teach contra the Confession of the church in which he is ordained.


----------



## Marrow Man

Willem van Oranje said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Presbyterianism has allowed "scruples" and I think for good reason. I'm not sure of a better mechanism than thorough scrutiny by a spiritual jury of peers of exceptions with a high level denominational overview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not to be taught in the churches, though. A "scruple" allows a man to be ordained despite his exception. It does not allow him to teach contra the Confession of the church in which he is ordained.
Click to expand...

 
Precisely! The problem with have (and I am speaking of my own denomination now) is that you have men who have declared exceptions but who are also openly teaching against the Confession. For example, R.J. Gore writes a book contra the RPW. Jay Adams writes a book (and teaches a SS class) against the WCF view of the Sabbath.

These things should not be. It's one thing to hold the exception; it's another to openly teach against the WCF.


----------



## Grimmson

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Gents,
> 
> I have a busy day today and won't be able to respond to some of your concerns for a while (daughter's 6th birthday party). I will either respond to this thread or address your concerns at Creed Code Cult soon.
> 
> But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect our core doctrines, but rather would like to see new heresies addressed, as well as certain things omitted (things that we already allow exceptions to anyway), and (2) that it is Scott Clark who first made this argument to me, so it has nothing to do with the FV agenda.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> JJS


 
You can see Scott Clark argue for writing a new confession in _Recovering the Reformed Confession_. A partial sample of the first chapter and the table of contents can be found here, http://www.wscal.edu/clark/frntmtrthruch1.pdf .

I would suggest reading the book on this issue and I do understand the attachment we all have to our subscribed confession. I do think there are intelligent and spiritually wise people today who could gather together and write out a confession if they actually tried; to some degree to think that only the Divines could and we cannot places the Divines in a superior spiritual and intellectual position, which in my opinion is dangerous and not right. Then again I am a Baptist. 

I wish I could continue with this post, but atlas I cannot; this is a post and run. 
I have a few more things to do before it gets to late, before my four month mad-rush insanity period begins in a couple of days.


----------



## earl40

Not to stray too far off the subject....Would it be OK to word the WCF as if George Will didn't write it in sundry times, and in divers manners?


----------



## Zenas

You'd still have to write a new Confession. To my knowledge, they sometimes argued for extended periods of time over the mere choice of words so as to foreclose certain implications from arising due to imprecise wording. The way it is worded, while dated, is part of the Confession.


----------



## Scott1

Riley,
My understanding in the PCA, and different denominations may be handling this in other ways, is that the presbytery is understood to have the authority to prevent a candidate from teaching his exception to the standard.

That is, this is within the plenary power of a Presbytery in examining and licensing a candidate for office.

So, for example, if a candidate was granted a sabbath recreation clause exception (for "light" recreation) to Westminster XXVII, it would be within the Presbytery to forbid that the nonconfessional view be taught as doctrine.

In practice, it's probably likely many do not give an express direction with regard to something they are classifying as "non fundamental" and certainly as "merely semantic" (PCA present system), but I think even in those cases there is an implied responsibility to explain both the confessed view, respectfully and the excepted view.

It seems, in practice, in such a situation, most likely the candidate simply tries to avoid addressing the issue directly, under implied oath.

There has been some discussion about this in recent years- some have proposed a requirement to present the confessional view and then allow them to present their excepted view, but this has only been a matter of discussion.


----------



## earl40

Zenas said:


> You'd still have to write a new Confession. To my knowledge, they sometimes argued for extended periods of time over the mere choice of words so as to foreclose certain implications from arising due to imprecise wording. The way it is worded, while dated, is part of the Confession.


 
I am curious if it translates well in other languages.


----------



## Zenas

No idea how they go about that. I'm unsure if they kept minutes, but I'm sure that's a helpful resource if available.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.


----------



## Covenant Joel

NaphtaliPress said:


> I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.


 
I really don't know that most of what people have said here accurately characterizes the post/proposal. So to make such a judgment seems quite premature.


----------



## Wayne

Chris: Doesn't Gillespie make the point somewhere (Miscellany Questions?) that we ought to be about discovering as much of the will of God as possible?
Which would mean that we should never give ground on the advance of doctrine. In this larger discussion, it seems like Gillespie's would be one good work to dust off and revisit.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Seems to me to have a confession 'we can all agree with it' is exactly one where those Puritan burrs like Lord's day observance, idolatry (depictions of Christ), and the regulative principle, will go on the chopping block as doctrines to uphold, exactly at a time when we are seeing some new vigor and interest in upholding them. My theory: a new confession will be a deterrent to redigging the wells and recovering what we have lost. Wayne, I will have to check for that place in Gillespie. It does not ring a bell.


----------



## Scott1

It would seem to me that amendment to the Confession is, and has always been available. If one wanted to eliminate a section, the amendment process is available.

To suggest re-writing the Confession, en toto, implies a new better discerned systematic theology has been discovered, and broadly agreed.

Where is that?


----------



## py3ak

Even if Gillespie didn't address it, doesn't Philippians 3:15,16 prevent us from letting attained doctrine slide?


----------



## Edward

ken.kang-hui said:


> why it might make sense, particularly at this time in the PCA.


 
I would suggest that this time in the PCA is the best reason for NOT writing a new confession. 

I admit that I view these moves in the PCA through a historical lens. Let's not forget the contributions that the 1967 Confession made in the progression of what is now the PCUSA.


----------



## Calvinus

Here are some problems. The modern day Presbyterian and Reformed churches have problems. My friend who attempted to bring problems to the attention of the elders was faced with dismissal. This church is well known in the Grand Rapids area.

He was the pastor and confronted some of the elders for saying one thing about the keeping the Sabbath holy and yet had businesses open on Sunday along with employees working on Sunday. He also wanted to address the issue of the plate glass behind the pulpit which had a representation of Christ. The elders, in their wisdom and understanding of their confessional standards, dismissed him. 

I attend a PCA church and yet when I protested the showing of Mel Gibson's Roman Catholic "Passion" movie, I was looked upon with incredulity - after all Christ is fully human and so he should be able to be represented! 

I also protested one elder (on again, off again) who taught a Sunday school class using Norman Geisler's "Chosen But Free." I was told that it was a moderate approach to Calvinism. 

I also protested one man who under the supervision of an elder, was teaching NPP doctrine. Of course this church is directly involved with WTS East's extension in Dallas. 

The elders showed themselves to be utterly incapable of spiritual and intellectual discernment. It is an old boys club and they close ranks when they feel threatened or when their actions are called into question. So I shut up and bide my time. The OPC has its problems as well. I attended one OPC church where the elders made decisions on the fitness of young men going off to seminary and whether or not they would be supported spiritually and financially. Two of the elders, at the time they were making such determinations, were committing adultery and one was abusing his wife. 

No, I don't think we have a generation capable of making changes or rewriting the standards of our churches. These standards were created literally with blood, sweat, and tears. The men involved were intellectual and spiritual giants compared to what we have in our seminaries and churches. One example is Gillespie. Do we have a Gillespie today? Not even close. Do we have a Bullinger, or a Calvin, or a Peter Martyr Vermigli? Not a chance! Do we have a Francis Turretine or a Charles Hodge or a W.G.T. Shedd, a R.L. Dabney? What about hymns with theological content instead of sentiment? What about what passes for a sermon these days? 

So who is going to write a new confession or new standards for our Presbyterian and Reformed churches? The whole idea is laughable!


----------



## MW

George Gillespie provides some sound cautions with respect to "new light" in his Treatise of Miscellany Questions, 52-57:



> it is but a false new light which expels not only the old darkness, but much of the good old light. As in medicines the Paraclesian way is most dangerous when it is destructive to the Galenic way, and overthrows the old approved principles. Yet it is of very good use when prudently and skillfully managed, for perfecting the Galenic way, and for doing things more speedily, easily, and pleasantly, than the Galenic way could do. So in divinity, such new lights as do not expel, but retain, improve, and perfect the old, may be of singular good use; but those new lights which are destructive and expulsive of the old true lights, those new ways which lead us away from the old and the good way, are to be utterly disliked and avoided. 2 John, ver. 8, "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought." He speaks it against those deceivers who would have seduced them from the doctrine of Christ, as is evident, both from the preceding verse, and from that which follows, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God," etc. Rom. 16:17, "Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." A bishop, says Paul, Titus 1:9, must hold "fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught." Phil 3:16, "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." This he adds as a prevention of a dangerous mistake and abuse of that which he had said immediately before, "And if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."





> take heed of proud, and lofty, and self-conceited new lights, 1 Cor. 14:32-33, "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." If the spirits of the prophets must be so subject, how much more the spirits of private persons. Wherefore, in a reformed church, all pretended new lights, which are against the received doctrine, government, or form of worship, ought to be, in all humility and submission, offered to be tried by a learned and godly synod.


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

NaphtaliPress said:


> I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.



This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.


----------



## beej6

I've thought about this too since Dr. Clark made the suggestion in his book. In our day, the first chapter of such a new confession, In my humble opinion, would be not on the Scripture (though I believe the WCF properly puts it there), but on "Confessionalism" - why a confession at all? I'd probably add a section in that chapter to the effect that my new confession is not meant to contradict or supplant a WCF or 3FU but to refine and further it if possible.
I've even thought that such a new confession could be based on an outline such as Dr. Morton Smith's in his _Systematic Theology_ though that may be too detailed for a confession.
Confessions provide bounds for ministers to preach, and areas of agreement for fellowship and unity. It would be telling if a representative group of any denomination, or of NAPARC, couldn't agree within two or three years on a confession. And there are plenty of new/old issues to write on - inerrancy, eschatology, cessationalism, justification...


----------



## Scott1

beej6 said:


> I've thought about this too since Dr. Clark made the suggestion in his book. In our day, the first chapter of such a new confession, In my humble opinion, would be not on the Scripture (though I believe the WCF properly puts it there), but on "Confessionalism" - why a confession at all? I'd probably add a section in that chapter to the effect that my new confession is not meant to contradict or supplant a WCF or 3FU but to refine and further it if possible.
> I've even thought that such a new confession could be based on an outline such as Dr. Morton Smith's in his _Systematic Theology_ though that may be too detailed for a confession.
> Confessions provide bounds for ministers to preach, and areas of agreement for fellowship and unity. It would be telling if a representative group of any denomination, or of NAPARC, couldn't agree within two or three years on a confession. And there are plenty of new/old issues to write on - inerrancy, eschatology, cessationalism, justification...


 
It doesn't seem the "problem" supposed would be solved by a new Confession.

Imagine that, as has been suggested, a new Confession is written with new sections added to address "new" heresies and other sections removed- those where supposed majorities of presbyteries would grant "exceptions" (scruples) "anyway."

First, these "heresies" are not really new, they are repackaged historical error. Second, those violating their confession now (e.g. with 'federal vision') are going to try to assign double meaning to the words as they do now, or they are not going to "confess" or they are going to write their "own" confession. If the latter, we would have competing confessions on key points within the reformed tradition, at least claiming to be reformed. NONE of these further clarity, unity, or the peace and purity of the church which is the basis for unity.

Presbyteries, in the PCA at least, admit a candidate based on any individual exception but also based on the totality of his theological fitness so there is not even an apples-to-apples comparison of "exceptions" that could be eliminated "because they are being granted anyway." For example on the sabbath recreation clause, some take exception only for "light" recreation, others for all "recreation." So, we couldn't even define that as a basis of unity in a new confession.

There may be, but I'm not familiar with a single exception that would be granted by every Presbytery. If there is, there are many that would not be. So, what about the Presbyteries that would not grant an exception to a point of doctrine- how are they going to unify based on a confession that ignores a fundamental point of doctrine?

The Westminster Confession was produced in the face of institutional falling away in the church by many men who were risking their lives. We don't have this same situation today.

It seems we have, in this generation, more of a prideful individualism, and among theologians who would differentiate fine points of doctrine that the layman often cannot understand, far less apply in their lives. The Confession is for all God's people- a summary of Christian faith and practice. It has served that purpose very well for centuries.

The Confession is not a product to suit an elite diverse collection of ideas, it is a cogent summary for God's people to unify on as a basis for Christian faith and practice.

Imagine if the esteemed gentleman from California were to write the Confession- how many people agree with him now at every point- even in his own denomination? How far is this going to get?

The difficulty here is we are not understanding the problem, far less the "solution."

The problem is sin. It is the ongoing disobedience of human beings to authority. That's not going to be eliminated in any re-write.

To the contrary, it is going to further fray the authority God has placed in His Church, and further a notion "that each man does what is right in his own eyes." This is not a new problem for the church, nor will it be until our Lord returns.

Know what this is all about?

Church discipline.

We are seeing in our generation nothing new- doing church discipline is difficult. It does not, thankfully require perfection, only obedience and faith.

That's what's lacking in the main in this whole discussion-

OBEDIENCE AND FAITH

And no "problem" in Christ's Body can be solved without them.


----------



## Kaalvenist

I actually argued for this idea, early on in my PB days:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/new-confession-12257/

*I retract what I formerly said.*

I do not believe that the churches need a new confession, but need to go back to affirming what we already have. As has been pointed out, the pattern of confessionalism is supposed to be a progression, advancing in precision and accuracy in handling the Word of God. But the current tendency is regression; and were a new confession to be drafted, I fear what would be the result -- what we would lose in the process.

We do not need different subordinate standards. We (both church officers and church members) need to understand, believe, teach, and practice the subordinate standards which we already have. (With the RP Testimony, which needs some modification in order to bring it back in line with the original Westminster Standards.)

And let us not speak of exceptions, scruples, or any other such thing. If it is the teaching of Scripture, it is the teaching of Scripture. If you think that creation was not "in the space of six days," if you think worldly recreations are lawful on the Sabbath, if you think that we may add human inventions to the worship of God, you may find yourself a church that agrees with you in these things. But let not the church speak out of two sides of her mouth, and declare such things to be important enough for every one of our subordinate standards to give an unequivocal decision, while admitting those who despise such principles to be members or officers in our churches.


----------



## jayce475

Jason J. Stellman said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.
Click to expand...

 
Rev Stellman, I do believe that the many of the people on this thread have read it and genuinely disagree with the points that you have raised. Since you are not only advocating for a PCA-only confessional document but one for all Reformed denominations, it seems reasonable for me to make some points.

"The unmistakable assumption here is that Catholics are not Christians. Now this is much stronger than the way we usually put it, which goes something like this: “Those who heartily embrace Rome’s teaching are not Christians, yet there are true believers within the Catholic Church.” Sure, WCF xxiv.3 is not as strong as calling the pope the antichrist (we graciously took that bit out), but it still equates Catholics with “infidels and other idolaters” to the point that no true believer can marry one."

Yes, Roman Catholics are not Christians, otherwise they are not Roman Catholics anymore. Christians within the RC will necessarily come out of it when they see the truth and the darkness of the RC. Marrying one who still claims to be a Roman Catholic is as clear a case of unequal yoke as we can ever have, so what exactly is the issue? On this point, you are claiming that many differ from the Westminster divines and Reformers on something as fundamental as this. Is this not compromise? I sincerely hope that you would not be in support of a sheep under your care marrying a professing Roman Catholic.

"Setting aside the fact that Rayburn does not believe Leithart’s teachings to be in conflict with the Standards (a point about which we strongly disagree), I do think he makes an interesting point. Why should we have confessions or catechisms that contain loads of statements that we all agree are not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine? Why include “in the space of six days” if it can be disagreed with? Why affirm that Paul wrote Hebrews if none of us really believes he did? Why say that the Bible frequently calls the covenant a testament if the claim is false on its face? Why forbid images of Jesus of Nazareth if virtually every children’s Bible or Sunday School curriculum violates this?"

Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which I do affirm) and calling the the New Convenant a testament (which I do affirm as well) are dissimilar to the other two that you have raised. The Westminster standards do not have a position on the former, and I acknowledge that, so it is somewhat curious why you have mentioned it. With regards to the latter, well, let's just say it is not at the same level as the other points that you have raised. The other issues are fundamental and you are saying that we ought to agree to disagree on such fundamental issues. Is that not compromise? We are now talking about not subscribing to the historical 6-24 position and not following the second commandment. Adding to the part on unequal yoke, we can potentially have an theistic evolutionist and second commandment flouting Christian minister who has married a Roman Catholic wife who is still in bondage to the RCC. That would be sad, and deeply compromising. On top of that that has already been mentioned, I also wonder if the compromise would also spread to cessationism? 

At the end of the day, what is the point of having a new confession? If it is to start introducing such compromises in the name of unity, surely biblical unity has to be built on biblical truth. As previously mentioned, it would be really sad if more Reformed denominations end up the way of PCUSA. 

If however, it is felt that there is a need to update the language of the standards, few would object and it has already been done. If it has to do with countering modern heresies, are not the current standards sufficient? The stance on cessationism is clear; the covenantal framework of scriptures is clear; and the position on God's sovereignty is clear. Please show how the standards are inadequate in dealing with these issues if there is a felt need for more to be written. In accusing the standards of containing unnecessary fat, please show how that is so as well.

If there is a fully valid reason for rewriting the confessions and there are the godly people to do so, few would object. But as it stands, the arguments that you have presented don't seem all that convincing and seem to point towards compromise more than anything. It is bad enough to have ministers within a denomination who are compromising, as it is in all denominations, but surely the point is to stop the rot and not joining them in the compromise.


----------



## beej6

Scott1 said:


> Know what this is all about?
> 
> Church discipline.
> 
> We are seeing in our generation nothing new- doing church discipline is difficult. It does not, thankfully require perfection, only obedience and faith.
> 
> That's what's lacking in the main in this whole discussion-
> 
> OBEDIENCE AND FAITH
> 
> And no "problem" in Christ's Body can be solved without them.


 
Oh, Scott, I have no problem with what you say. Certainly if discipline of those outside the bounds were taken more seriously, then those bounds would be "easier" to spot. 
The other piece is if a significant group wishes to change the Confession, then let them use their church's mechanism to do so.

My fear is what is happening, or will happen eventually if it isn't happening where you are, is that the Confession is being changed anyway *without* such procedure, or churches will just give lip service to their Confession.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jason J. Stellman said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.
Click to expand...

 
Rev. Stellman, I read the the blog and Chris makes good sense to me. I honestly believe you have set up some straw men in your blog. For example, the casting lots issue, the Roman Catholic marriage issue, and the issue of whether or not any ordained man actually believes the issues you raise are strawmen, in my opinion. The Standards are set. If someone doesn't adhere to them he should be honest and let the courts decide. If he doesn't like or approve them then maybe he should just cross the Tiber so to speak or where ever he decides to land. The oath and vow are something that is not taken seriously and is lacking in our society just as reverence for God's Holy name. Just because that is true should not make them any less more serious. I think you would agree with me when you look at the marriage problems you have to confront. The Standard is the Standard. Just because men don't like the Standard doesn't mean it should be changed because ordained men or laymen don't understand, know, or approve of them. 

BTW, who in the world casts lots now days? That is just stupid. We have a more Sure Word spoken by and given by our Lord now days in the Canon. JMO. Let the Standards be the Standard and if someone doesn't like them let them go else where or pursue the purity and unity of the Church. What fellowship does light have with darkness? 

Remember. 1 Corinthians 15:33 and be careful who you decide to play ball with. Why not just change the confessions to make them say what the Federal Vision wants. Many a better man than you or I spilled blood and studied much more than you or I ever will to pen the confessions. Are we better in understanding? I think not.

Just as an add on..... I do believe the Confessions address Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism, and Open Theism. What Confession are you reading?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev. Stellman, I read the the blog and Chris makes good sense to me. I honestly believe you have set up some straw men in your blog. For example, the casting lots issue, the Roman Catholic marriage issue, and the issue of whether or not any ordained man actually believes the issues you raise are strawmen, in my opinion. The Standards are set. If someone doesn't adhere to them he should be honest and let the courts decide. If he doesn't like or approve them then maybe he should just cross the Tiber so to speak or where ever he decides to land. The oath and vow are something that is not taken seriously and is lacking in our society just as reverence for God's Holy name. Just because that is true should not make them any less more serious. I think you would agree with me when you look at the marriage problems you have to confront. The Standard is the Standard. Just because men don't like the Standard doesn't mean it should be changed because ordained men or laymen don't understand, know, or approve of them.
> 
> BTW, who in the world casts lots now days? That is just stupid. We have a more Sure Word spoken by and given by our Lord now days in the Canon. JMO. Let the Standards be the Standard and if someone doesn't like them let them go else where or pursue the purity and unity of the Church. What fellowship does light have with darkness?
> 
> Remember. 1 Corinthians 15:33 and be careful who you decide to play ball with. Why not just change the confessions to make them say what the Federal Vision wants. Many a better man than you or I spilled blood and studied much more than you or I ever will to pen the confessions. Are we better in understanding? I think not.
> 
> Just as an add on..... I do believe the Confessions address Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism, and Open Theism. What Confession are you reading?
Click to expand...

 
I think there is probably a place for lots, if it is used reverently. I read a story about a town that cast lots to decide the result of an electoral tie over who would be mayor. I think this would have been a good use of the ordinace of lots. Sadly, it was done in a completely irreverent manner.


----------



## Scott1

beej6 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Know what this is all about?
> 
> Church discipline.
> 
> We are seeing in our generation nothing new- doing church discipline is difficult. It does not, thankfully require perfection, only obedience and faith.
> 
> That's what's lacking in the main in this whole discussion-
> 
> OBEDIENCE AND FAITH
> 
> And no "problem" in Christ's Body can be solved without them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Scott, I have no problem with what you say. Certainly if discipline of those outside the bounds were taken more seriously, then those bounds would be "easier" to spot.
> The other piece is if a significant group wishes to change the Confession, then let them use their church's mechanism to do so.
> 
> My fear is what is happening, or will happen eventually if it isn't happening where you are, is that the Confession is being changed anyway *without* such procedure, or churches will just give lip service to their Confession.
Click to expand...

 
It's always a valid concern in every generation that men will distort, violate, misrepresent biblical doctrine, including what they confess. That they will violate their vows. That they will fall prey to a creating a "cult of personality," etc. Nothing new about that (e.g. read I and II Corinthians).

Absolutely nothing has changed with man's sinfulness.

The thing is I do see people regularly screened out for matters of theology or morals, all the time with officers. And I see people grow by it. It seems to me that is much of the redemptive point of it all, at least in the Kingdom of God. The high profile cases of discipline, such as what the gentleman of the blog is dealing with, is the only solution. There is no other viable alternative. Re-writing a confession to either make vague or change to accommodate the point of view of some violators only adds confusion, and lessens the authority and meaning of confession. "Broadening the tent," at least in a confessional sense, only leads to shallowness and disunity and individualism (using that term as opposed to peace and purity type unity).

God is proving things out through it. Some high profile leaders under oath are being tested for the humility, subjection to the brethren, receiving of a doctrine in public ceremony.

What will it prove out in their lives?

Insolence? Humility? A love for the brethren? A love for self?

Our Lord only knows.

But this _is_ the process He uses.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Willem van Oranje said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev. Stellman, I read the the blog and Chris makes good sense to me. I honestly believe you have set up some straw men in your blog. For example, the casting lots issue, the Roman Catholic marriage issue, and the issue of whether or not any ordained man actually believes the issues you raise are strawmen, in my opinion. The Standards are set. If someone doesn't adhere to them he should be honest and let the courts decide. If he doesn't like or approve them then maybe he should just cross the Tiber so to speak or where ever he decides to land. The oath and vow are something that is not taken seriously and is lacking in our society just as reverence for God's Holy name. Just because that is true should not make them any less more serious. I think you would agree with me when you look at the marriage problems you have to confront. The Standard is the Standard. Just because men don't like the Standard doesn't mean it should be changed because ordained men or laymen don't understand, know, or approve of them.
> 
> BTW, who in the world casts lots now days? That is just stupid. We have a more Sure Word spoken by and given by our Lord now days in the Canon. JMO. Let the Standards be the Standard and if someone doesn't like them let them go else where or pursue the purity and unity of the Church. What fellowship does light have with darkness?
> 
> Remember. 1 Corinthians 15:33 and be careful who you decide to play ball with. Why not just change the confessions to make them say what the Federal Vision wants. Many a better man than you or I spilled blood and studied much more than you or I ever will to pen the confessions. Are we better in understanding? I think not.
> 
> Just as an add on..... I do believe the Confessions address Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism, and Open Theism. What Confession are you reading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there is probably a place for lots, if it is used reverently. I read a story about a town that cast lots to decide the result of an electoral tie over who would be mayor. I think this would have been a good use of the ordinace of lots. Sadly, it was done in a completely irreverent manner.
Click to expand...

 
Wow, Is that all you got out of my post. Well, Okay. But that wasn't the point. I don't suggest it be done. Especially in light of ordination or whether we should receive certain standards or not. We have a more Sure Word. It is a completed Canon now. 

You just totally slipped off the point in my estimation. But as I noted, "Well, Okay."


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

Brothers,

I apologize for letting so many comments go by unanswered. Yesterday was technically my day off, so….

Anyway, I’d like to try to address some of your concerns (and if I forget something, please feel free to point it out and I’ll address it).

My overall reason for bringing up Rayburn’s point about the lack of relevance our Standards have in the minds of many Reformed ministers is to facilitate discussion about this issue. Some people have refused to even hear the argument since it comes from a man who has gone on record defending Federal Visionists. I understand the irony here, believe me, and I pointed it out to him directly. But whether or not the FV is guilty of violating the Standards (and I think it clearly does), that is a separate issue. If it makes you feel better to picture Scott Clark’s face making the argument for a new confession, then do that, since he has been making the case for years. 

My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with. As we examine candidates for ordination on the floor of our presbyteries, can we really doubt this? Maybe all of your candidates are stellar, but I have seen a serious lack of deep theological reflection on the part of many of our prospective ministers. Rayburn’s point is that this failure is at least partly explained by the fact that the confession to which they are expected to subscribe is a seventeenth-century document that reflects its time better than it does our own.

Concerning the relation of unity to truth, I don’t think that any of you who knows me thinks that I am advocating compromise on doctrinal matters. But at the same time, I think that Christ’s purposes would be better served if our various Reformed denominations found a way to exhibit more visible unity than we currently do. For my part, I think it’s silly that the OPC and PCA can’t become a single church. We don’t accomplish that by loosening our language on justification, but by being willing to compromise on certain less-important issues. I for one would welcome the attempt. 

So all I’m saying is that it is worthwhile discussing whether a new confession is warranted, one that could perhaps help unite us, one that doesn’t contain myriads of statements that half our ministers are allowed to take exceptions to. If “in the space of six days” is not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine, then why not take it out completely? If movements like Dispensationalism or the New Perspective present new challenges to our churches, then why not address them confessionally? 

If the denominations represented by the members of this forum were to unite as a single church, I think that would be a God-glorifying thing. If a new confession could help facilitate that, then I think it’s a discussion worth having.


----------



## Particular Baptist

I actually agree with Rev. Stellman that there is no reason for the divisions between the Reformed denominations and that a new Confession is a good idea in order to foster unity amoungst the brethren. Far too much of the time, we feel as if we are letting down our past forebearers by re-stating what we as a church believe, but the truth of the matter is that the Westminster Confession is a man made document, just like every other confession. I agree with an overwhelming majority of what it says, but are these essentials over which we as Christians, even Reformed Christians, should be divided over? Perhaps Protestants have become too schismatic and don't realize that maintaining visible church unity is a VERY important matter. 

The interesting thing is that I'm saying this as a credobaptist, one who would be left out of such a confession, though in my heart of hearts I so desire for all the brethren to dwell together and attend the same churches. What is the point of saying "We confess this...." when not all of the "we" do confess this?

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------




Jason J. Stellman said:


> Brothers,
> 
> Concerning the relation of unity to truth, I don’t think that any of you who knows me thinks that I am advocating compromise on doctrinal matters. But at the same time, I think that Christ’s purposes would be better served if our various Reformed denominations found a way to exhibit more visible unity than we currently do. For my part, I think it’s silly that the OPC and PCA can’t become a single church. We don’t accomplish that by loosening our language on justification, but by being willing to compromise on certain less-important issues. I for one would welcome the attempt.
> 
> So all I’m saying is that it is worthwhile discussing whether a new confession is warranted, one that could perhaps help unite us, one that doesn’t contain myriads of statements that half our ministers are allowed to take exceptions to. If “in the space of six days” is not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine, then why not take it out completely? If movements like Dispensationalism or the New Perspective present new challenges to our churches, then why not address them confessionally?
> 
> If the denominations represented by the members of this forum were to unite as a single church, I think that would be a God-glorifying thing. If a new confession could help facilitate that, then I think it’s a discussion worth having.


 
I completely agree that if the members were to unite, it would be a God-glorifying thing. Would you go so far as to allow both credo and paedo believers to practice alongside?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

> Wow, Is that all you got out of my post. Well, Okay. But that wasn't the point. I don't suggest it be done. Especially in light of ordination or whether we should receive certain standards or not. We have a more Sure Word. It is a completed Canon now.
> 
> You just totally slipped off the point in my estimation. But as I noted, "Well, Okay."



That was my way of indicating that I agreed with most of the rest of what you said.


----------



## louis_jp

Excuse my ignorance, but how would a new confession foster unity between Reformed denominations? If they were unified enough to compose a new confession, wouldn't they be unified enough to agree to an existing one?


----------



## Particular Baptist

louis_jp said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but how would a new confession foster unity between Reformed denominations? If they were unified enough to compose a new confession, wouldn't they be unified enough to agree to an existing one?



Not necessarily, there are some secondary issues that many Reformed denominations would disagree on. For instance, the RPW is one example where differences would be far ranging. A new confession which would address the essentials and address new concerns would be of great help. The Puritans addressed their concerns dealing with the papacy, and we have our own today.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------




Joshua said:


> New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.



Wasn't the Westminster a new confession when written? Why didn't they just use the Scots confession or the Belgic or the Genevan?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Jason J. Stellman said:


> My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.


 
This is the heart of the problem, but I propose that we are still in the process of rediscovering our heritage, including the Westminster Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's not that we're not interested. We inherited the standards, as well as lax attitudes toward them in the PCUSA and the PCUS, and we've been gradually journeying back to them. To take away the disagreeable doctrines or points that seem peculiar to many Reformed ministers today would short circuit the reforming process which has been going on for the last 80 years in Reformed churches. How are we going to keep going down the road of discovering the richness of our standards if we trim off the parts that still seem hazy? We are only just rediscovering the heritage of our fathers, and we don't want to stop it now.


----------



## Particular Baptist

But the Belgic confession isn't sufficient, neither was the Heidelberg Catechism, or the Canons of Dordt? So the question is whether a confession is 'sufficient' enough. We must assume from this answer that the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Scots confession weren't sufficient.


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

louis_jp said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but how would a new confession foster unity between Reformed denominations? If they were unified enough to compose a new confession, wouldn't they be unified enough to agree to an existing one?



Personally, I think it would be next to impossible to either get the Dutch to give up the 3FU for the WS, or the presbyterians to do the opposite. But if both were able to contribute to something new, it may be an easier compromise that each side would be willing to live with.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the heart of the problem, but I propose that we are still in the process of rediscovering our heritage, including the Westminster Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's not that we're not interested. We inherited the standards, as well as lax attitudes toward them in the PCUSA and the PCUS, and we've been gradually journeying back to them. To take away the disagreeable doctrines or points that seem peculiar to many Reformed ministers today would short circuit the reforming process which has been going on for the last 80 years in Reformed churches. How are we going to keep going down the road of discovering the richness of our standards if we trim off the parts that still seem hazy? We are only just rediscovering the heritage of our fathers, and we don't want to stop it now.
Click to expand...

 
Should we continue the heritage of calling the pope the antichrist? I think that most on this board do not think that the pope is the antichrist or the man of lawlessness. Rev. Stellman is not saying that we abandon our heritage, but rather that we need to find what is essetial and unify around that.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Joshua said:


> New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.


 
A new or added confession would make distinctively clear those doctrines which are now only implied. It would be something that those errantists who are now claiming assent to the WCF could not get themselves to affirm. If we didn't need to keep adding new confessions every so often in response to heresy, we would have just stuck with the Apostles' Creed. After all, all the doctrines taught in the WCF are inherently implied in the Apostles' Creed. 

I think the Westminster Standards are the greatest and clearest doctrinal formulations ever written. Yet we could now be more clear than they were on such topics as the imputation of Christ's active obedience, the gifts of tongues and prophecy, the evil of abortion, the need for capital punishment, etc.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------




Particular Baptist said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the heart of the problem, but I propose that we are still in the process of rediscovering our heritage, including the Westminster Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's not that we're not interested. We inherited the standards, as well as lax attitudes toward them in the PCUSA and the PCUS, and we've been gradually journeying back to them. To take away the disagreeable doctrines or points that seem peculiar to many Reformed ministers today would short circuit the reforming process which has been going on for the last 80 years in Reformed churches. How are we going to keep going down the road of discovering the richness of our standards if we trim off the parts that still seem hazy? We are only just rediscovering the heritage of our fathers, and we don't want to stop it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should we continue the heritage of calling the pope the antichrist? I think that most on this board do not think that the pope is the antichrist or the man of lawlessness. Rev. Stellman is not saying that we abandon our heritage, but rather that we need to find what is essetial and unify around that.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, indeed. I applaud our brothers in Britain who are now organizing to protest the reappearance of Antichrist on British soil.


----------



## louis_jp

Particular Baptist said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse my ignorance, but how would a new confession foster unity between Reformed denominations? If they were unified enough to compose a new confession, wouldn't they be unified enough to agree to an existing one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, there are some secondary issues that many Reformed denominations would disagree on. For instance, the RPW is one example where differences would be far ranging. A new confession which would address the essentials and address new concerns would be of great help. The Puritans addressed their concerns dealing with the papacy, and we have our own today.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Westminster a new confession when written? Why didn't they just use the Scots confession or the Belgic or the Genevan?
Click to expand...


Well, they'd first have to agree on what's essential and what's not. If they disagree now, how does that disappear with a new confession? You might end up with more splits than you have now. 

Beyond that, I'd say the state of the church today does not inspire a lot of confidence as to what a new confession would look like. Maybe the PCA should demonstrate a more emphatic willingness and ability to deal effectively with the FV before they start proposing new confessions.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Willem van Oranje said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new or added confession would make distinctively clear those doctrines which are now only implied. It would be something that those errantists who are now claiming assent to the WCF could not get themselves to affirm. If we didn't need to keep adding new confessions every so often in response to heresy, we would have just stuck with the Apostles' Creed. After all, all the doctrines taught in the WCF are inherently implied in the Apostles' Creed.
> 
> I think the Westminster Standards are the greatest and clearest doctrinal formulations ever written. Yet we could now be more clear than they were on such topics as the imputation of Christ's active obedience, the gifts of tongues and prophecy, the evil of abortion, the need for capital punishment, etc.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Particular Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the heart of the problem, but I propose that we are still in the process of rediscovering our heritage, including the Westminster Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's not that we're not interested. We inherited the standards, as well as lax attitudes toward them in the PCUSA and the PCUS, and we've been gradually journeying back to them. To take away the disagreeable doctrines or points that seem peculiar to many Reformed ministers today would short circuit the reforming process which has been going on for the last 80 years in Reformed churches. How are we going to keep going down the road of discovering the richness of our standards if we trim off the parts that still seem hazy? We are only just rediscovering the heritage of our fathers, and we don't want to stop it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should we continue the heritage of calling the pope the antichrist? I think that most on this board do not think that the pope is the antichrist or the man of lawlessness. Rev. Stellman is not saying that we abandon our heritage, but rather that we need to find what is essetial and unify around that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed. I applaud our brothers in Britain who are now organizing to protest the reappearance of Antichrist on British soil.
Click to expand...

 
Firstly, I think that we could all say that there are some who are in the invisible church who are still a part of the Roman Catholic system. Are these brothers and sisters cohorts with Antichrist?

Secondly, is Catholicism anymore the antichrist than Mormonism, Open Theology, Oneness Penecostals, Christadelphians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, agnostics, aethists, or even some Arminians? I think not.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

I've got an idea. 

How about we all subscribe to the WStds, the 3FU, and the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, (which was able to deal with several topics in more detail due to false teachings which arose in the latter half of the 17th century, most of which have sprung up today in other forms.) We subscribe strictly, and enforce these vows using the courts of the church. Problem solved.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Willem van Oranje said:


> I've got an idea.
> 
> How about we all subscribe to the WStds, the 3FU, and the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, (which was able to deal with several topics in more detail due to false teachings which arose in the latter half of the 17th century, most of which have sprung up today in other forms.) We subscribe strictly, and enforce these vows using the courts of the church. Problem solved.



Why is there so much hostility to this idea? I'm perceiving, perhaps incorrectly, that you're being sarcastic in this comment. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I see that so many on this board want to hold onto the past confessions because they feel that if they don't they won't be considered 'Puritan' or 'Reformed' in some sense.


----------



## Scott1

With the greatest respect for the integrity the esteemed pastor is showing in the church court case,
please see comment below:



Jason J. Stellman said:


> Brothers,
> 
> I apologize for letting so many comments go by unanswered. Yesterday was technically my day off, so….
> 
> Anyway, I’d like to try to address some of your concerns (and if I forget something, please feel free to point it out and I’ll address it).
> 
> My overall reason for bringing up Rayburn’s point about the lack of relevance our Standards have in the minds of many Reformed ministers is to facilitate discussion about this issue. Some people have refused to even hear the argument since it comes from a man who has gone on record defending Federal Visionists. I understand the irony here, believe me, and I pointed it out to him directly. But whether or not the FV is guilty of violating the Standards (and I think it clearly does), that is a separate issue. If it makes you feel better to picture Scott Clark’s face making the argument for a new confession, then do that, since he has been making the case for years.


But doesn't this make the opposite point- that there will be no unity because of the doctrinal differences the men we imagine here stand for?

Your illustration implies men who represent two different viewpoints- not a unified one.


Jason J. Stellman said:


> My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.



If they are not engaging the details now, why would those who take such an attitude toward their office and vow suddenly change, e.g. to engage details, just because a new Confession is written?



Jason J. Stellman said:


> As we examine candidates for ordination on the floor of our presbyteries, can we really doubt this? Maybe all of your candidates are stellar, but I have seen a serious lack of deep theological reflection on the part of many of our prospective ministers.



I've only seen a few, several have been very, very good. But how does a new Confession change this at all? A Confession itself doesn't improve one's own theological reflection, it would seem.



Jason J. Stellman said:


> Rayburn’s point is that this failure is at least partly explained by the fact that the confession to which they are expected to subscribe is a seventeenth-century document that reflects its time better than it does our own.



What part of sin and redemption has changed? What specifically (pray tell) does this mean- can you be specific?
Is this being used to change the Apostle's Creed, which is much, much older?



Jason J. Stellman said:


> Concerning the relation of unity to truth, I don’t think that any of you who knows me thinks that I am advocating compromise on doctrinal matters. But at the same time, I think that Christ’s purposes would be better served if our various Reformed denominations found a way to exhibit more visible unity than we currently do.



How is another Confession among Reformed Christians, one that will only compete with others on key doctrines going to do anything but divide another camp/denomination? And launch a round of a new faction of theological reflection?



Jason J. Stellman said:


> For my part, I think it’s silly that the OPC and PCA can’t become a single church. We don’t accomplish that by loosening our language on justification, but by being willing to compromise on certain less-important issues.



Like what specifically?
There are historical, demographic, and other reasons (other than doctrine).
What if the two denominations work well together, have high level fraternal relations and an "open door" to uniting but still have some distinctives that make them wish to remain separate? Why would that be forced?



Jason J. Stellman said:


> I for one would welcome the attempt.
> 
> So all I’m saying is that it is worthwhile discussing whether a new confession is warranted, one that could perhaps help unite us,



It's certainly not uniting anything here.



Jason J. Stellman said:


> one that doesn’t contain myriads of statements that half our ministers are allowed to take exceptions to.



Are you advocating a minimalist new Confession (e.g. the Essentials of the Faith, like the EPC which does not include the "five points" at all, the doctrines of grace- is that what we compromise and somehow get "deeper theological reflection)?



Jason J. Stellman said:


> If “in the space of six days” is not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine, then why not take it out completely?



I'm not greatly familiar with the several views, but it would seem to me there might be legitimate disagreement about the length of "day" in the creation without damaging the integrity of the Confession. Not sure, but it seems removing the phrase doesn't help bring clarity or unity in that one bit.



Jason J. Stellman said:


> If movements like Dispensationalism or the New Perspective present new challenges to our churches, then why not address them confessionally?



Isn't that what is happening in the court case you are involved in? (At least for the latter)



Jason J. Stellman said:


> If the denominations represented by the members of this forum were to unite as a single church, I think that would be a God-glorifying thing.



Unite how? By avoiding all different doctrinal differences, sincerely held?



Jason J. Stellman said:


> If a new confession could help facilitate that, then I think it’s a discussion worth having.



A new Confession that seeks to re-address "new" heresies (that are dressed-up old ones) or drop altogether other ones dearly held, would not seem to further this "unity" at all.

It's almost like saying, some people believe the speed limit should be 55mph, others 65mph, others 75mph- so we will just not post one because there is not 100% agreement, or worse yet, we pass a law that says... "we agree speed limits are important... and that each person should obey one of them. But the important thing is, we all like cars, therefore we are unified- because we all like cars."


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Particular Baptist said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got an idea.
> 
> How about we all subscribe to the WStds, the 3FU, and the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, (which was able to deal with several topics in more detail due to false teachings which arose in the latter half of the 17th century, most of which have sprung up today in other forms.) We subscribe strictly, and enforce these vows using the courts of the church. Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there so much hostility to this idea? I'm perceiving, perhaps incorrectly, that you're being sarcastic in this comment. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I see that so many on this board want to hold onto the past confessions because they feel that if they don't they won't be considered 'Puritan' or 'Reformed' in some sense.
Click to expand...

 
I am not at all being sarcastic. I wish that we would all do this. Seriously. 

And as far as creeds and confessions, it is my view that we can/ought morally never to slacken our doctrinal standards. We must hold to what we have attained. This will mean retaining historic confessions, or incorporating the whole substance of their doctrine into any new documents, (as for example the WStds incorporated phrases from the definition of Chalcedon and Nicene Creed.


----------



## Marrow Man

Particular Baptist said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Westminster a new confession when written? Why didn't they just use the Scots confession or the Belgic or the Genevan?
Click to expand...


Completely different historical circumstances. There was a civil war going on. The Westminster assembly was actually called by Parliament to rewrite the 39 Articles, but early in the process there came the realization that a simply revision was not going to be sufficient. They later called for Scottish commissioners to help with writing the Confession. And the Scots liked it so much that they traded the Scots Confession for the WCF! Which is actually one of those historical ironies, because if the Scots had not, the WCF may have landed in the dustbin of history, since it did not become the confessional standard for the Church of England because of subsequent English historical developments after 1647.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Marrow Man said:


> Completely different historical circumstances. There was a civil war going on. The Westminster assembly was actually called by Parliament to rewrite the 39 Articles, but early in the process there came the realization that a simply revision was not going to be sufficient. They later called for Scottish commissioners to help with writing the Confession. And the Scots liked it so much that they traded the Scots Confession for the WCF! Which is actually one of those historical ironies, because if the Scots had not, the WCF may have landed in the dustbin of history, since it did not become the confessional standard for the Church of England because of subsequent English historical developments after 1647.



And the "completely different" historical circumstances matter how?

Do you mean to imply that if the civil authorities ask/tell us to come up with something then fine, but the Body of Christ cannot take that initiative?


----------



## Wayne

Particular Baptist said:


> Why is there so much hostility to this idea? I'm perceiving, perhaps incorrectly, that you're being sarcastic in this comment. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I see that so many on this board want to hold onto the past confessions because they feel that if they don't they won't be considered 'Puritan' or 'Reformed' in some sense.


 
Spencer:

"Why is there so much hostility to this idea?" Your question presumes that we should readily accept the idea of revision. I for one reject that presumption. Quite a number of posts in this thread display perfectly good reasons for rejecting revision. In my own mind, one of the greatest reasons is that revision would be entirely destructive of what little unity we now enjoy. I would also expect revision to result in a dilution of doctrine, not a building of doctrine.

Also, in your scratching around for a reason as to why we would reject the idea of revision, you come up with a perfectly wrong explanation. Moreover, it is an explanation that assumes the worst of us, that our reasoning would be small, petty and immature. Again, please take the time to read some of the substantive posts on this thread.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SolaScriptura said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely different historical circumstances. There was a civil war going on. The Westminster assembly was actually called by Parliament to rewrite the 39 Articles, but early in the process there came the realization that a simply revision was not going to be sufficient. They later called for Scottish commissioners to help with writing the Confession. And the Scots liked it so much that they traded the Scots Confession for the WCF! Which is actually one of those historical ironies, because if the Scots had not, the WCF may have landed in the dustbin of history, since it did not become the confessional standard for the Church of England because of subsequent English historical developments after 1647.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the "completely different" historical circumstances matter how?
> 
> Do you mean to imply that if the civil authorities ask/tell us to come up with something then fine, but the Body of Christ cannot take that initiative?
Click to expand...

 
Erastianism was rampant Ben. You know that. The work was done in a way that refuted it. The Standards were far more complete and theologically correct. In fact to answer the original question Tim was addressing, I do believe that all the resources were used in comparison. That is why it took so long to complete the Standards. It was more definitive and right. 

BTW, I don't hold to the Standards because I want to look like a Puritan or Reformed. I hold to them because they are what the scriptures teach in my estimation. Even the Creation stuff is important to me. I think the creation account matters in how we view and approach the scriptures. While I am not a paedo baptist I still strongly hold to the Standards and I am honest about where I disagree. 

Just as a note of reminder....
The 1689 LBCF is recognized as a Reformed Confession on this board.


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine. 

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect? 

Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it. 

In other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?

Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more? For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.

Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either. 

We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this? All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rev. Stellman,

Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for? Why should we desire to lose our identity for the sake of your conscience over mine? For one thing, the line is marked and is good. It will never be accepted by many. It will never be looked at as inclusive enough even if your desire comes to light. You will only have to move the boundary again later. I think you know that. 

I think I will stick with what is good and biblical.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

I find Charles Hodge's explanation helpful, that subscribing to the system of doctrine contained in the WCF means, in part, not having any scruples with chapters 1-20.


----------



## jwright82

I don't think we need a revised confession because we have ecclesastical mobility. By that I mean that if I am a Presbyterian and I come to the beleif that paedobaptism is not biblical than I can in principle go to a church that has a confesion that reflects my new beleifs. In a state church type situation where only one confesion was allowed and a significant number of members and leaders disagreed with it on some issue than the state church may or should adress the issue with the possibilty of revision. I agree with adding to but not really taking away from our confessions.


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Rev. Stellman,
> 
> Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?



NAPARC is not a church. 

I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to _see_. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?

No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).


----------



## torstar

> And the "completely different" historical circumstances matter how?
> 
> Do you mean to imply that if the civil authorities ask/tell us to come up with something then fine, but the Body of Christ cannot take that initiative?


 


Historic circumstances matter all the time.

Do you think there would be a chance of getting the 50 US states to ratify a Constitution if they drew it up anew today?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What is your definition of Unity Rev.? Better yet, What is your definition of Union? 

I have partook of the Lord's table in many different kinds of congregations. Both Paedo and Credo only. My Unity is with people who know Christ as Lord and Saviour. We have things in common. We have a common Head. We have a King. But we all don't look or act the same way. There are different body parts. They don't look or act the same and we should work together to bring those along into maturity. I believe the Confession is a mature document and is very Christ Centered. 

BTW, I saw this Unity argument pull apart things before. It is a straw man also in my estimation. It rings the same sound of crying that we are not inclusive enough. 

Here is an experience I had for the sake of Unity and LOVE.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/distinctives-biblical-doctrine-important-churches-3/


----------



## Scott1

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine.
> 
> Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?



As one who has not requested exception, no. Every doctrine, though difficult, like the sabbath, are faithful summary of Scripture.

We would be left with very little, something like a short list of essentials, which is not even distinctly reformed.



> Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it.


I'm not familiar enough with the alternative views to comment only that, there is not any evidence any of the Westminster Divines believed the alternate modern views, so it is best handled as an exception, and evaluated both individually from the standpoint of the system as well as within the context of the totality of their biblical theology.

It doesn't seem avoiding that brings clarity, integrity, or unity.


> n other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?



I don't think anything needs to be said louder. That's why it is written down in careful, concise manner so even the layman can learn from and understand it.




> Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more?


Not if what it says now is all biblical and important truth.

All this would do is further divide and confuse God's people, especially in reformed churches. 


> For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.


For that logic, why not remove the parts about murder, lying, cheating and stealing? (By the way, I don't think there is evidence there is much, if any, difference between continent and puritan on sabbath. The Dutch were/are some of the strongest advocates of keeping the sabbath holy.





> Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either.
> 
> We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this?



We already have such a Confession.


> All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.


 No Standard can be possibly fully obeyed in this Life. Not the ten commandments, not the doctrine summarized in the historic Confessions. Perfect obedience is only in Christ. It's Christ's righteousness alone that saves us.

You, of all people, must know this.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine.
> 
> Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?
> 
> Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it.
> 
> In other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?
> 
> Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more? For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.
> 
> Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either.
> 
> We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this? All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.



I think I hear what you're saying, and if what I think you're saying is in fact what you are saying, then I agree with the point of what you are saying.

Frankly, I receive the Standards of my church without exception, and I wish that everyone - and every presbytery and every particular congregation - were as committed to adhering to the Standards as are the overwhelming majority of the folks here on the PB. 

But unfortunately, not everyone in the Reformed world are as people on the PB are.

I for one, think it begs the legitimate question - if not accusation - of whether or not some in the Reformed world are venerating a document when they vehemently reject the idea of changes to the standards even as they take one exception after another to them. 

Again - how can we seriously say we receive something as a Standard when, in practice, we do not?

I happen to believe that when we say a Confession reflects the Bible's teaching, that we should in fact believe it. And if Samuel Miller was correct in that confessions are necessary to define boundaries and limits for association and fellowship, then by way of example, we should not declare as a Standard of our church that we believe the world and all that is in it was made in the span of 6 days, and then allow anyone and everyone to disagree. At some point, claims of adhering to the Standard seem to ring a little hollow for me. 

I say - either "rework" the Confessional standards of our church to accurately reflect what we believe (yes, using generic enough language to allow for the breadth of currently allowable positions) or actually enforce the current Confession.

But as I see it, the root problem is allowing exceptions to be made. Neither keeping the current document nor engaging in periodic revisions will prevent drift as long as we allow exceptions.

I'm calling for honesty and consistency. That's it.


----------



## Scott1

While the line of reasoning that as long as we have any scruples allowed, we cannot have unity is attractive, it does not logically follow that a new confession would be immune from the same thing.

Some may not agree, but I think careful deliberative review of scruples toward their substance and the system of doctrine actually encourages officers and church members to take their vows, and the doctrine more seriously.
(Now, this is not an argument at all for theological liberty, not for automatic granting, etc., only that this kind of review is both healthy and necessary, in light of the falleness of man and the professed infallibility of the Standards).

No Confession is infallible, nor ever could be, because our understanding is not infallible, so implying that it could be attributes something to the nature of human being affected by the Fall that Scripture does not.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Scott1 said:


> Some may not agree, but I think careful deliberative review of scruples *toward their substance and the system of doctrine *actually encourages officers and church members to take their vows, and the doctrine more seriously.


 
So that I'm understanding you correctly - are you saying that the individual propositions of the Standards aren't the really important part, and instead what is key is adherence to the "substance" and "system of doctrine" found in it? Would this mean, then, that adhering to a specific point in the confession isn't as important as standing up and just saying, "I believe that the 'Reformed system' is right on." ?


----------



## Scott1

SolaScriptura said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some may not agree, but I think careful deliberative review of scruples *toward their substance and the system of doctrine *actually encourages officers and church members to take their vows, and the doctrine more seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that I'm understanding you correctly - are you saying that the individual propositions of the Standards aren't the really important part, and instead what is key is adherence to the "substance" and "system of doctrine" found in it? Would this mean, then, that adhering to a specific point in the confession isn't as important as standing up and just saying, "I believe that the 'Reformed system' is right on." ?
Click to expand...


It seems wise the way our PCA system approaches this by requiring a vow of comprehensive understanding of and agreement with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards or a requirement to state, and have evaluated any "difference." Differences can be (merely) semantic, and non-fundamental or fundamental. 

But the candidate (for office) is evaluated in a couple ways- the difference in terms of its own individual merit AND in terms of its impact on the "system of doctrine" as a whole. And again, the totality of the candidates fitness for office is evaluated for ordination (exemplary life and doctrinal understanding).

This sets a very high bar for scruples, as it should be.

The fact that one person is granted a fact specific exemption (which may be quite fact specific qualified), does not make the standard, because exceptions are just that- exceptions.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Scott1 said:


> The fact that one person is granted a fact specific exemption (which may be quite fact specific qualified), does not make the standard, as in calling for a new standard, because exceptions are just that- exceptions.


 
But when the preponderence of folks take "exception" to something, it seems that the exception has become the new de facto norm of what is actually believed and taught, while the "standard" is the practical, functional, exception to that. Think about that for a bit.


----------



## Scott1

SolaScriptura said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that one person is granted a fact specific exemption (which may be quite fact specific qualified), does not make the standard, as in calling for a new standard, because exceptions are just that- exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when the preponderance of folks take "exception" to something, it seems that the exception has become the new de facto norm of what is actually believed and taught, while the "standard" is the practical, functional, exception to that. Think about that for a bit.
Click to expand...

 
As we know, it's not quite that simple. Exceptions are requested, on the record, and evaluated by a spiritual jury of peers (presbytery). There is no right to their being granted, and it is the duty of presbytery to carefully investigate them individually and in terms of their implications with other doctrine.

In many presbyteries, just because an exception is granted, that does not mean there is permission to teach it. It's a burden to carry an exception as it ought be, but still allows for sake of conscience. I think that has to be there. And it doesn't necessarily destroy the doctrine, let alone the system.

This is nothing new- historic Presbyterianism has always recognized this.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Scott1 said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that one person is granted a fact specific exemption (which may be quite fact specific qualified), does not make the standard, as in calling for a new standard, because exceptions are just that- exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when the preponderance of folks take "exception" to something, it seems that the exception has become the new de facto norm of what is actually believed and taught, while the "standard" is the practical, functional, exception to that. Think about that for a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As we know, it's not quite that simple. Exceptions are requested, on the record, and evaluated by a spiritual jury of peers (presbytery). There is no right to their being granted, and it is the duty of presbytery to carefully investigate them individually and in terms of their implications with other doctrine.
> 
> In many presbyteries, just because an exception is granted, that does not mean there is permission to teach it. It's a burden to carry an exception as it ought be, but still allows for sake of conscience. I think that has to be there. And it doesn't necessarily destroy the doctrine, let alone the system.
> 
> This is nothing new- historic Presbyterianism has always recognized this.
Click to expand...

 
Scott- you're missing the forest for the trees. 

How does a given Standard serve as anything other than an historical marker that we "confess" for the profound sense of historical continuity we get from "confessing" it when we don't agree with it? The very act of allowing an exception to it undermines a claim of thinking it is an important identifier of group thought.

Anyway, you have an idealized notion of the "gravity" of an exception. Yes, yes, we have procedural rules for how to do something, but have you ever felt the cynical gaze of someone in your own denomination who thinks you're either foolish or lying precisely because you DON'T take exceptions? Have you? I have, on multiple occasions, and I'm "just" a chaplain, not a pastor who is regularly involved with other officers of the Church! Contrary to what I'm supposed to say, our Standards - in too many places - aren't really the Standard. I can regale you with tales from sundry ministers that might turn you, well, white.


----------



## Scott1

Glad they are the Standard for you, Ben.

The point has been made regarding the premise that allowing exceptions has somehow created necessity for a new confession, which new confession will solve the problem, so I'll not address it further here.


----------



## MW

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?


 
In what universe could it have that effect? While there are men who conscientiously act with the vows of God upon them there is obviously going to be a group of people who maintain, assert, and defend every article of the confession which they have subscribed with their own hand in the sight of God and men. And why shouldn't they? Afterall, they not only promised to the church that they would do so, but the church also promised her support and nurture in the process.

The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust.


 
This ought to be framed. That's the heart of the issue. Rather than "turning white" at the winks and nods that men give to exceptions I fear for men who would stand before God and promise to uphold standards with fingers crossed as if God does not see all.

Men rise to the level of expectations. Lower the bar and all you've done is created an even easier Standard to ignore because the backbone and integrity of the men affirming the new Confession will still not exist to prosecute those who violate the new Standards.

I can't conceive how the new Standard could protect the flock from Leithart and Rayburn if the current "strict" Standard proves to be too neglected an instrument in the hands of those who ought to be upholding the Constiution we presently possess. I'm less concerned with calls for unity right now then the condemnation of Ezekiel 34.


----------



## Kaalvenist

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine.
> 
> Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?
> 
> Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it.
> 
> In other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?
> 
> Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more? For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.
> 
> Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either.
> 
> We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this? All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.


Rev. Stellman,

I don't believe in "system subscription." That is not the historic view of my Synod (or our body of churches throughout the world). Having once gained the truth on the subject, we would be dishonest to God and to our own consciences to relinquish such things as "in the space of six days," and the glorious precision we have on the Sabbath; and having once relinquished them, we are in a bad place to continue the trend. I don't believe that Sabbath-breaking is acceptable from church members (certainly not church officers); nor do I think that violations of the second commandment are acceptable (pictures of Christ, hymn singing, instrumental accompaniment, etc.). When obedience or disobedience to the law of God is at stake, we cannot make exceptions. You are presently experiencing the result of system subscription in your church court battles. -- And I cannot see that your proposal would work for the Dutch Reformed (who require all professing members to "profess the true reformed religion") or for us Covenanters (who will never relinquish unaccompanied exclusive psalmody as the doctrine and practice of our church).

Of course, the actual doctrine and practice of the Sabbath amongst Dutch Reformed often excels that of the Three Forms. Rev. Ray Lanning in Grand Rapids once told me an interesting ecclesiastical saga, part of which involved his query to a man raised Netherlands Reformed, what the Sabbath practice was in those churches? His reply was "About three steps to the right of Westminster."


----------



## SolaScriptura

armourbearer said:


> The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust.


 
I agree, but I don't see a need to limit it to the _modern_ reformed church... as I look at the history of confessional churches, it seems that confessional purity has a hard time lasting longer than a couple generations before slide and drift occur. What, if anything, can be done about that?


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> I agree, but I don't see a need to limit it to the _modern_ reformed church... as I look at the history of confessional churches, it seems that confessional purity has a hard time lasting longer than a couple generations before slide and drift occur. What, if anything, can be done about that?


 
Good point! The Church of Scotland faced these issues immediately after requiring the signing of a formula. But it does seem the "authentic self" of post modernism poses a threat to traditional values in a way other philosophical trends were inept to do.

What can be done? It is a good question which has often met with a wrong answer resulting in disastrous consequences (1 Samuel 4:3). The answer obviously is not to pretend that we have the power to inwardly constrain men to act honourably. There was a time when the church felt its need to set apart days for fasting, humiliation, and confession of sin. The Church of Scotland was accustomed to bind up a document called "A solemn acknowledgment of publick sins and breaches of the covenant" with its confessional standards. It would be very easy to look for sociological or psychological causes and remedies to the problems we face; but the truth is that the church has always fought with the very worst dynamics set against it and has only triumphed because the Lord was on her side. If as a church we are losing the battle then as a church we must take responsibility and humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord that He may lift us up.


----------



## Marrow Man

PuritanCovenanter said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely different historical circumstances. There was a civil war going on. The Westminster assembly was actually called by Parliament to rewrite the 39 Articles, but early in the process there came the realization that a simply revision was not going to be sufficient. They later called for Scottish commissioners to help with writing the Confession. And the Scots liked it so much that they traded the Scots Confession for the WCF! Which is actually one of those historical ironies, because if the Scots had not, the WCF may have landed in the dustbin of history, since it did not become the confessional standard for the Church of England because of subsequent English historical developments after 1647.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the "completely different" historical circumstances matter how?
> 
> Do you mean to imply that if the civil authorities ask/tell us to come up with something then fine, but the Body of Christ cannot take that initiative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erastianism was rampant Ben. You know that. The work was done in a way that refuted it. The Standards were far more complete and theologically correct. In fact to answer the original question Tim was addressing, I do believe that all the resources were used in comparison. That is why it took so long to complete the Standards. It was more definitive and right.
> 
> BTW, I don't hold to the Standards because I want to look like a Puritan or Reformed. I hold to them because they are what the scriptures teach in my estimation. Even the Creation stuff is important to me. I think the creation account matters in how we view and approach the scriptures. While I am not a paedo baptist I still strongly hold to the Standards and I am honest about where I disagree.
> 
> Just as a note of reminder....
> The 1689 LBCF is recognized as a Reformed Confession on this board.
Click to expand...

 
What Randy said.

Or, to say it a different way, there's a big difference between coming together to write a confession in an attempt to preserve the Reformed faith from the machinations of oppressive crypto-catholic monarchs, and desiring to construct a minimalist confession because some folks like pictures of Jesus, think the RPW is too restrictive, like to watch NFL on Sundays, and think YEC is scientifically naive. I understand not everyone who wants a new confession necessarily wants it for the reasons of the latter, but that's the kind of thing we would get. Minimalism in the guise of unity and harmony. But that is a completely different historical circumstance.

I would add that there was extensive use made of another confession not mentioned -- the Irish Articles.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Jason J. Stellman said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Stellman,
> 
> Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAPARC is not a church.
> 
> I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to _see_. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?
> 
> No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).
Click to expand...


In my experience visiting a URCNA, all you need to tell them is that you are a member in good standing of another reformed (NAPARC) church, and that is good enough form them to admit you to the supper.


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Stellman,
> 
> Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAPARC is not a church.
> 
> I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to _see_. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?
> 
> No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience visiting a URCNA, all you need to tell them is that you are a member in good standing of another reformed (NAPARC) church, and that is good enough form them to admit you to the supper.
Click to expand...


Not at Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim (Riddlebarger's church). I got taken into a private room and was quizzed on Calvin's view of Christ's presence in the Supper. When I passed their test I asked what would have happened if I gave a memorialist answer, and I was told they'd have denied me access. But if I had given a Lutheran answer I would've been admitted.


----------



## Christusregnat

Jason J. Stellman said:


> But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect _*our core doctrines*_,


 
This is an arbitrary parameter: the Confession and Catechisms ARE our core doctrines!


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Stellman,
> 
> Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAPARC is not a church.
> 
> I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to _see_. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?
> 
> No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience visiting a URCNA, all you need to tell them is that you are a member in good standing of another reformed (NAPARC) church, and that is good enough form them to admit you to the supper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim (Riddlebarger's church). I got taken into a private room and was quizzed on Calvin's view of Christ's presence in the Supper. When I passed their test I asked what would have happened if I gave a memorialist answer, and I was told they'd have denied me access. But if I had given a Lutheran answer I would've been admitted.
Click to expand...

 
All I've got to say is, weird. Something about those Modern Reformation/White Horse guys strikes me as crypto-Lutheran.


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

Christusregnat said:


> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But please know (1) that I have no desire to see anything changed that would in the least affect _*our core doctrines*_,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an arbitrary parameter: the Confession and Catechisms ARE our core doctrines!
Click to expand...


Then why do we already allow people to deny them? If the Westminster Standards are our core doctrines, full stop, then every time we allow someone to espouse a non-literal creation-day position, or a looser view of recreation on the Sabbath, we are allowing him to disregard our core doctrines.

I agree that we need to be able to equate "the system of doctrine" with the confession we subscribe (that's kind of my whole point), but we don't do that, at least not in the PCA. And I would argue that we really can't, at least not without getting rid of all the stuff we allow exceptions to. Or, we could just stop allowing exceptions altogether.


----------



## Christusregnat

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Or, we could just stop allowing exceptions altogether.


 
Agreed!


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

Here's a follow-up:

Creed Code Cult: On Saying Less More Loudly


----------



## Romans922

I know I am late on this one, but Jason said something similar to "Why don't we get rid of all the exceptions that are allowed today?" Just last year Metro Atlanta Presbytery allowed an exception to WSC 3. So we should throw the catechism question out on Scripture. I'm sure there have been worse exceptions allowed than that. I don't understand why exceptions should be allowed and why men can't be honest. 

Isn't it true in the URC (which holds to 3 forms of unity) that exceptions aren't taken. You either accept the whole thing or you don't. If you don't you can't be a minister in the URC. Why is this not possible in the PCA, OPC?


----------



## Jason J. Stellman

Romans922 said:


> I know I am late on this one, but Jason said something similar to "Why don't we get rid of all the exceptions that are allowed today?" Just last year Metro Atlanta Presbytery allowed an exception to WSC 3. So we should throw the catechism question out on Scripture. I'm sure there have been worse exceptions allowed than that. I don't understand why exceptions should be allowed and why men can't be honest.
> 
> Isn't it true in the URC (which holds to 3 forms of unity) that exceptions aren't taken. You either accept the whole thing or you don't. If you don't you can't be a minister in the URC. Why is this not possible in the PCA, OPC?



I think the detailed nature of the Westminster Standards disallows it, at least for the majority of ministers in the PCA and OPC. That's been my point all along.


----------



## jayce475

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am late on this one, but Jason said something similar to "Why don't we get rid of all the exceptions that are allowed today?" Just last year Metro Atlanta Presbytery allowed an exception to WSC 3. So we should throw the catechism question out on Scripture. I'm sure there have been worse exceptions allowed than that. I don't understand why exceptions should be allowed and why men can't be honest.
> 
> Isn't it true in the URC (which holds to 3 forms of unity) that exceptions aren't taken. You either accept the whole thing or you don't. If you don't you can't be a minister in the URC. Why is this not possible in the PCA, OPC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the detailed nature of the Westminster Standards disallows it, at least for the majority of ministers in the PCA and OPC. That's been my point all along.
Click to expand...

 
And the solution to that is for this "majority of ministers in the PCA and OPC" to start believing in the scriptures as per the standards, not to come up with standards that fit them. I'm sure everyone gets what you want, in that you wish for us to major in the major and minor in the minor. Who doesn't? Problem is, these exceptions and points of contention are not minor. At least not the way PBers see it, as evidenced by the responses we have seen so far. Non-literal 6-24, unequal yoke with RCC, violations of the Sabbath, violations of the 2nd commandment, and other such points, are not minor and we do not wish to compromise on them.


----------



## Scott1

Jason J. Stellman said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Stellman,
> 
> Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAPARC is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in and of itself it is not- but one of its founding purposes was to provide a way of eventual ecclesiastical unity, based on reformed doctrine.
> 
> How could you possibly dismiss NAPARC when its very purpose is the unity you say is what the reformed church needs (and only an [unknown new content] confession can bring)?
> 
> NAPARC would seem to be part of the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to _see_. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two issues with this:
> 1) An assumption that a new confession will be so perfected that it will overcome limitations of all previous Confessions in the history of the church and therefore, will suddenly create unity
> 2) That having yet another reformed confession, with substantially less and/or different doctrine than those that have been tested for several hundred years will NOT further divide the reformed part of the church
> 
> 
> 
> No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

One of the ways unity is shown is through the many churches that recite the Apostle's Creed.

As you are aware, there are some important differences in theology with the Lord's Supper. On top of that, the Word tells those who administer it and those who take it are to do so carefully.

But, the argument presented here laments the doctrinal differences.

How does the proffered new confession bring unity over this very important issue?

By ignoring it?


----------



## P.F.

Jason Stellman:

You wrote: "If the denominations represented by the members of this forum were to unite as a single church, I think that would be a God-glorifying thing. If a new confession could help facilitate that, then I think it’s a discussion worth having."

Why would it be glorifying to God? Is the PCUSA more glorifying to God than the PCA on account of its greater unity?

Why shouldn't the PCA relax its standards to permit reunification with the PCUSA?

If you can answer that last question, the rest should become clear to you.


----------



## Notthemama1984

There is a difference between relaxing standards to allow for liberality and uniting various denominations that differ on very few things.


----------



## P.F.

Boliver,

Please explain the difference to me.

Allow me to elaborate: almost every departure from the standards can be characterized as a "liberal" development by those who adhere to the standards.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jason J. Stellman said:


> Here's a follow-up:
> 
> Creed Code Cult: On Saying Less More Loudly





> Now, try as I might to make this point convincingly on the Puritan Board on Tuesday (and I did try), the vast majority of contributors just dismissed the idea with a chuckle and wave of the hand. So I’ll try again here, and then I’ll let the matter drop.



*First off, I don't think anyone here dismissed your idea with a chuckle and the wave of a hand.* That is just a another straw man you are presenting. *We took you very seriously *and I personnally was saddened by your thoughts. I think you are treading on seriously dangerous ground. I also fear where your thoughts will lead. If it weren't so I wouldn't have piped up. So far, I find your argumentation to be found lacking and dangerous for the Reformed Church. I don't think anyone was chuckling and just relinquishing you to the nonsensical. We took your ideas very seriously and considered it seriously in error.



> From the blog...But as long as we theoretically subscribe to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms but allow countless exceptions to be taken to them, we leave ourselves no choice but to scratch our heads over whether things like refraining from recreation on the Sabbath and 6/24 creation are intrinsic to the system.



I think Reverend Winzer answered some of this already along with the 'let’s say less, but say it way louder for unity sake' remark. 

I do believe the things you mention are intrinsic to the system as one point builds upon another. I believe the Divine's did also. If someone doesn't want to adhere they can move to the PCUSA and try to move her a little closer to the biblical standards. At least they won't be causing division amongst the Reformed. 



armourbearer said:


> Jason J. Stellman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what universe could it have that effect? While there are men who conscientiously act with the vows of God upon them there is obviously going to be a group of people who maintain, assert, and defend every article of the confession which they have subscribed with their own hand in the sight of God and men. And why shouldn't they? Afterall, they not only promised to the church that they would do so, but the church also promised her support and nurture in the process.
> 
> The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust.
Click to expand...




> from blog.... My proposal is simply that if we all agree that something is not intrinsic to the system, then why not omit it altogether?


 
This is just not going to happen. Dream on. Once you move that boundary of what was intrinsic to the Divines, because you Rev. Stellman don't think it is intrinsic, someone else is going to tell you the Regualtive Principle of Worship isn't intrinsic to the system. Then others are going to move to eliminate the section on the Scriptures because surely it might contain the Word of God but it isn't fully the Word of God because men's thoughts and emotions are definitely inbread into it. Now you are going to have to define what is intrinsic and what isn't to the system. You are losing your battle in my opinion. And you by your thinking are harming the Church and taking away something we are to mature into.


----------



## Wayne

On the desire to unite denominations, taking the OPC and PCA as an illustration--what separates the two is not the Westminster Standards or how the members of each denomination hold them. 
What separates the OPC and the PCA is polity--how each conducts meetings of the Church at the Presbytery and General Assembly levels (esp. GA). The OPC has an ecclesiastical culture that treasures extended debate, to the point that one never "calls the question" to end debate. Rather, the floor is open until everyone is through. The PCA on the other hand is run like a business meeting, with limited times for floor debate.
Revision of the Standards would not even touch that divide.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Wayne said:


> On the desire to unite denominations, taking the OPC and PCA as an illustration--what separates the two is not the Westminster Standards or how the members of each denomination hold them.
> What separates the OPC and the PCA is polity--how each conducts meetings of the Church at the Presbytery and General Assembly levels (esp. GA). The OPC has an ecclesiastical culture that treasures extended debate, to the point that one never "calls the question" to end debate. Rather, the floor is open until everyone is through. The PCA on the other hand is run like a business meeting, with limited times for floor debate.
> Revision of the Standards would not even touch that divide.



So, this is the Biblical reason for the separation of the two denominations? Perhaps if we all took the Bible a bit more seriously than how we as sinners run our church meetings we could unite and realize that visible church unity is no small matter. One thing that's always made me ponder is what will happen when persecution does come to the church in the Western world, how long will we continue to believe that we can't be united because of how one church runs business meetings. When persecution comes, I would hope that all believers, but especially Reformed, Biblical Christians, whether they be credobaptist, paedobaptist or what have you, will decide that these other issues are small compared to what we must unite around, Jesus Christ and His Gospel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Spencer, You have a lot to learn historically. I understand your heart cry. I long for the Church to be one in mind also. I suggest you learn more history from the first and second Reformation and what brought about the Confessions. Just a recommendation. The Church has gone through the situation you described. It was called the Reformation. And it failed in some ways and was a great success in others. I hope I am not being harsh with you but you are niave.


----------



## Particular Baptist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Spencer, You have a lot to learn historically. I understand your heart cry. I long for the Church to be one in mind also. I suggest you learn more history from the first and second Reformation and what brought about the Confessions. Just a recommendation. The Church has gone through the situation you described. It was called the Reformation. And it failed in some ways and was a great success in others. I hope I am not being harsh with you but you are niave.



Are you stating that because it failed in the past that we shouldn't pursue unity among other denominations, escpecially Reformed or Calvinistic denominations? Calvin himself was one of the greatest ecumenical thinkers and yearned for the the Lutheran and Reformed branches to come together, if I even remember right he signed a modified version of the Augsburg Confession. Why was the church able to maintain so much unity the first four hundred years of it's existence and, yet, since the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries ended the way it did we now find it naive to seek the unity of the Reformed churches?


----------



## Wayne

Spencer: 

I did not say that "this was the Biblical reason for the separation of the two denominations". I offered no defense for the separation of the two. The point of my earlier statement was to show that revision of the Westminster Standards would not touch on what actually, really separates the two denominations today. There is nothing about the Standards or how we hold them that separates the two.


----------



## Wayne

> Are you stating that because it failed in the past that we shouldn't pursue unity among other denominations



No, he didn't say that either. Try not to read into statements things that aren't there. [I say that, trying to be helpful, not harsh or critical]


----------



## P.F.

One of the issues that is being addressed only tangentially here is the nature of Christian unity. The unity of mind of all believers is the real, lasting unity that will be enhanced in the life to come. The political unity we have (or lack) is a lesser kind of unity. It is still a very pleasant and valuable kind of unity. Nevertheless, it is logically and substantively inferior to the unity of mind. After all, we have unity of polity with hypocrites, while we have unity of mind on the Gospel with folks who cannot speak English, and consequently with whom any sort of political unity is impractical.

The political disunity among those who speak the same language is an unpleasant side-effect of commitment to doctrinal purity, combined with differing opinions. The solution is to strive to persuade one another of the truth, not to pretend that the truth can be glossed over by lowest-common-denominator creeds/confessions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Particular Baptist said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer, You have a lot to learn historically. I understand your heart cry. I long for the Church to be one in mind also. I suggest you learn more history from the first and second Reformation and what brought about the Confessions. Just a recommendation. The Church has gone through the situation you described. It was called the Reformation. And it failed in some ways and was a great success in others. I hope I am not being harsh with you but you are niave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you stating that because it failed in the past that we shouldn't pursue unity among other denominations, escpecially Reformed or Calvinistic denominations? Calvin himself was one of the greatest ecumenical thinkers and yearned for the the Lutheran and Reformed branches to come together, if I even remember right he signed a modified version of the Augsburg Confession. Why was the church able to maintain so much unity the first four hundred years of it's existence and, yet, since the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries ended the way it did we now find it naive to seek the unity of the Reformed churches?
Click to expand...

 


Know that I desire unity. It is a wonderful thing when two walk together as one. Amos 3:3 I believe that Unity and Union are two differing things though. I believe we are all in Union with Christ but we as local bodies and denominations should walk in unity. BTW, the Unity of the Church for the first 400 years is a myth. There is still One Church I believe with many differing body parts. We are all connected to the Head which is Christ. 

Actually the problem is a little more difficult because Paul has warned us about those who come in and cause division. There are those who want us to be all-inclusive which is dangerous. Then they say we are being to exclusive. Some deny the authority of Scripture. Some start to pic away at the foundations slowly. Then you end up with educated men deceiving the Church and removing the landmarks that are so important. 



> (Rom 16:17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
> 
> (Rom 16:18) For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Mr. Snyder,

Thank you for the distinction between union and unity, that is very true. But, do you feel that sometimes Protestants emphasis the idea, that the invisible is always in union because of the Headship of Christ, to the point where we use that as an excuse to be divided by so many secondary things?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Chaplainintraining said:


> There is a difference between relaxing standards to allow for liberality and uniting various denominations that differ on very few things.


 
I posit this: _relaxing standards_ is a sin.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Willem van Oranje said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between relaxing standards to allow for liberality and uniting various denominations that differ on very few things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posit this: _relaxing standards_ is a sin.
Click to expand...


I agree that it would be sinful. I was thinking about putting aside adiophric differences and come together, not putting aside truth for the sake of unity.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Relaxing what standards? I'm not for relaxing the gospel, the Trinity, the essentials to the Christian faith, or the doctrines of grace. But, why would it be a sin to say to other believers 'We don't agree on such and such non-essentials, but we can still fellowship together'?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Particular Baptist said:


> Relaxing what standards? I'm not for relaxing the gospel, the Trinity, the essentials to the Christian faith, or the doctrines of grace. But, why would it be a sin to say to other believers 'We don't agree on such and such non-essentials, but we can still fellowship together'?



Come on Spencer. You know what the topic is about. Quit obfuscating. No one is denying fellowship here from person to person or congregation to congregation.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Particular Baptist said:


> Relaxing what standards? I'm not for relaxing the gospel, the Trinity, the essentials to the Christian faith, or the doctrines of grace. But, why would it be a sin to say to other believers 'We don't agree on such and such non-essentials, but we can still fellowship together'?


 
Relaxing the confessed Standards of the church, that is. In our case we are talking about the Westminster Standards. To relax these confessional standards one iota would be a sin for two reasons. 1. They are biblical. 2. The church has already confessed them corporately, and is even now confessing them.

We do not have the option or luxury to shrink back from the landmarks that our forefathers in the faith have set. We can only press forward to greater clarity. We may not draw back. 

Philippians 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. 

Joshua 4:5-7 5 And Joshua said unto them, Pass over before the ark of the LORD your God into the midst of Jordan, and take ye up every man of you a stone upon his shoulder, according unto the number of the tribes of the children of Israel: 6 That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones? 7 Then ye shall answer them, That the waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it passed over Jordan, the waters of Jordan were cut off: and these stones shall be for a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever.


----------



## Scott1

> http://www.epc.org/mediafiles/epc-book-of-order-2009-2010.pdf
> 
> EPC
> Book of Church Order
> Essentials of our Faith
> 
> 1. We believe in one God, the sovereign
> Creator and Sustainer of all things, infinitely
> perfect and eternally existing in three
> Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To
> Him be all honor, glory and praise forever!
> 
> 2. Jesus Christ, the living Word, became flesh
> through His miraculous conception by the
> Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. He who is
> true God became true man united in one
> Person forever. He died on the cross a
> sacrifice for our sins according to the
> Scriptures. On the third day He arose bodily
> from the dead, ascended into heaven where,
> at the right hand of the Majesty on High,
> He now is our High Priest and Mediator.
> 
> 3. The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Christ
> and to apply the saving work of Christ to
> our hearts. He convicts us of sin and draws
> us to the Savior, indwelling our hearts. He
> gives new life to us, empowers and imparts
> gifts to us for service. He instructs and
> guides us into all truth, and seals us for the
> day of redemption.
> 
> 4. Being estranged from God and condemned
> by our sinfulness, our salvation is wholly
> dependent upon the work of God’s free
> grace. God credits His righteousness to
> those who put their faith in Christ alone for
> their salvation, and thereby justifies them in
> His sight. Only such as are born of the Holy
> Spirit and receive Jesus Christ become
> children of God and heirs of eternal life.
> 
> 5. The true Church is composed of all persons
> who through saving faith in Jesus Christ
> and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit
> are united together in the body of Christ.
> The Church finds her visible yet imperfect,
> expression in local congregations where the
> Word of God is preached in its purity and
> the sacraments are administered in their
> integrity, where scriptural discipline is
> practiced, and where loving fellowship is
> maintained. For her perfecting she awaits
> the return of her Lord.
> 
> 6. Jesus Christ will come again to the earth
> personally, visibly, and bodily—to judge the
> living and the dead, and to consummate
> history and the eternal plan of God. “Even
> so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 22:20)
> 
> 7. The Lord Jesus Christ commands all
> believers to proclaim the gospel throughout
> the world and to make disciples of all
> nations. Obedience to the Great
> Commission requires total commitment to
> “Him who loved us and gave Himself for
> us.” He calls us to a life of self-denying love
> and service. “For we are His workmanship,
> created in Christ Jesus for good works,
> which God prepared beforehand that we
> should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10)



This is not about the particular denomination. It's an illustration of the wrong assumption underlying the post topic.

Above is a minimalist Confession (without the detail of the historic Confessions) that we could all agree with.

The problem is, it is not uniquely reformed, not even uniquely broadly evangelical- it could probably by agreed by the Roman church.

The doctrines of grace are not detailed, nor covenant theology, nor the sacraments, nor polity.

Just imagine the disunifying things that could be taken alongside this (hypothetical only)

'federal vision'
new revelation outside of Scripture as an ordinary means of grace
memorial only sacraments
arminianism (at least 3 or 4 points)
dispensationalism 
soul sleep
no millennial reign of Christ now
congregational polity
female dominated polity
evolution
social gospel focus of corporate worship
entertainment of self focus of worship
everyday is a sabbath, no distinction


There is no basis for any kind of systematic theology of the whole of God's Word, which I believe is one coherent whole, to be understood, taught, and defended in every communion, to the peril of those, particularly teachers of God's Word who do not do so.

It is not a right of private interpretation as is the prevalent man-centered thinking of our age.

And while representing this would unify, we undermine one of the key principles of reformed theology, taken from Scripture-

The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal unity.

And make no mistake about it, it wouldn't be long until the edges of even these most basic of statements would either be ignored or challenged.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Scott1 said:


> EPC
> Book of Church Order
> Essentials of our Faith
> 
> 1. We believe in one God, the sovereign
> Creator and Sustainer of all things, infinitely
> perfect and eternally existing in three
> Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To
> Him be all honor, glory and praise forever!
> 
> 2. Jesus Christ, the living Word, became flesh
> through His miraculous conception by the
> Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. He who is
> true God became true man united in one
> Person forever. He died on the cross a
> sacrifice for our sins according to the
> Scriptures. On the third day He arose bodily
> from the dead, ascended into heaven where,
> at the right hand of the Majesty on High,
> He now is our High Priest and Mediator.
> 
> 3. The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Christ
> and to apply the saving work of Christ to
> our hearts. He convicts us of sin and draws
> us to the Savior, indwelling our hearts. He
> gives new life to us, empowers and imparts
> gifts to us for service. He instructs and
> guides us into all truth, and seals us for the
> day of redemption.
> 
> 4. Being estranged from God and condemned
> by our sinfulness, our salvation is wholly
> dependent upon the work of God’s free
> grace. God credits His righteousness to
> those who put their faith in Christ alone for
> their salvation, and thereby justifies them in
> His sight. Only such as are born of the Holy
> Spirit and receive Jesus Christ become
> children of God and heirs of eternal life.
> 
> 5. The true Church is composed of all persons
> who through saving faith in Jesus Christ
> and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit
> are united together in the body of Christ.
> The Church finds her visible yet imperfect,
> expression in local congregations where the
> Word of God is preached in its purity and
> the sacraments are administered in their
> integrity, where scriptural discipline is
> practiced, and where loving fellowship is
> maintained. For her perfecting she awaits
> the return of her Lord.
> 
> 6. Jesus Christ will come again to the earth
> personally, visibly, and bodily—to judge the
> living and the dead, and to consummate
> history and the eternal plan of God. “Even
> so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 22:20)
> 
> 7. The Lord Jesus Christ commands all
> believers to proclaim the gospel throughout
> the world and to make disciples of all
> nations. Obedience to the Great
> Commission requires total commitment to
> “Him who loved us and gave Himself for
> us.” He calls us to a life of self-denying love
> and service. “For we are His workmanship,
> created in Christ Jesus for good works,
> which God prepared beforehand that we
> should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10)
> 
> 
> 
> ,
Click to expand...

 
To quote JH Thornwell, "A slice of Independency, a dash of Quakerism, but no, no, no Presbyterianism."


----------



## Austin

Here are my 1st few thoughts on the matter: 

1) Amending the confessional standards is about as wise as skating on thin ice on a warm day. Or dancing while blindfolded and drunk on the edge of a cliff. At night. Every time it has been attempted (with the exception of cutting out the parts about Erastianism and the Pope being the Antichrist) it has been a source of more trouble than it was worth. Often it has been used by wily non-confessional types (or the Devil, plain & simple) to erode the faith once delivered to the saints. Have any of us looked at the PCUSA's "Book of Confessions," or noted how its adoption was intended by the modernists to make subscription impossible? 

2) In my denomination (the EPC), we have adopted the ridiculous "Modern Language Version" of the Standards. The WSC revision is has been modernized in such a way that actual memorization is well-nigh impossible. (But who, other than RTS students & a few godly folk scattered here & there still have to memorize it?) The prose is clunky, and the attempts to eliminate 17th Century verbiage is about as smooth and useful as the people who destroy the flow & rhyming of hymns in order to replace the words "Thee," "Thou," "Thy," etc with the modern 2nd person pronouns. (As if anyone REALLY has any trouble knowing what those words mean!) The EPC's WCF revision has two *massive* flaws. One is that it includes the wretched additional chapters (adopted around the turn of the 20th Century by the UPCUSA & PCUS) on "The Love of God and Missions" and "Of the Holy Spirit." Now, while someone may say that the Standards needed chapters on these things, surely every one of the Divines is rotating in his grave knowing that these chapters have introduced an Amyraldianism which runs counter to the rest of the WCF. Further, who seriously believes that the WCF needed a chapter on evangelism? what, like the Divines, or any real Christian, could have fully subscribed and then coldly rejected Christ's Great Commission? Whatever. The other error is found in ch.2, where it states that God has no "emotions." The intent was to modernize the word "passions" (as if the word needed modernization). But they made a mistake. I asked one of the guys on the team that did it (in the 1970s, before the EPC existed) why they made this change. His answer: "It was late and we missed it in the editing process." (!!!!) Now I use this as a shibboleth to see if candidates have actually read the EPC version that they are subscribing to. Almost none notice it. (What does that say about their dedication to truth?) 

3) As Scott has so aptly stated, the issue at hand is one of Church Discipline. Let your 'yea' be 'yea' and your 'nay' be 'nay.' Do not bear false witness. if you are unable, in faith, to subscribe to the Standards, or if you are unwilling to state exceptions for some reason, then go join the Evangelical Free Church or some other confession-free denomination. There is nothing that sends me into apoplexy more than candidates for ordination or transfer who state no exceptions (or state too few), and then prove through their exams that they are liars, knaves, or fools. If you aren't down with six-day creation, say so, for God's sake. If you want to take your kids to Disneyland on the Sabbath Day, then state a freaking exception! If, in your unparalleled wisdom, have concluded that Scofield and Chafer were right, THEN STATE A [Expeletive deleted] EXCEPTION! 

On the other hand, what comes in a close second is these sons of Belial who come forward stating exceptions to things that NO ONE with a modicum of understanding of the Standards would EVER state. For instance, why do I see occasional exceptions against the WCF's position regarding monastic vows? What the h*** is that? I have been told to my face by recently approved candidates that they've never *read* the WLC or WSC. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Some have said that they never studied any but the WCF, and that in a cursory fashion. (I am convinced from examinations that many of these who say that they *have* studied in such a cursory fashion are liars. They just don't want to get in trouble. But when you cannot enunciate the basic doctrines of Reformed soteriology, sacramentology, or the Covenant, then you have no clue what's in the Standards.) 

4) With the state of the Church as it is, even in our Reformed circles, are these morons, liars, false-professors, covenant breakers, etc the kinds of people we want *voting* in a General Assembly about such matters? Come on. 

5) RE: exceptions -- The Adopting Act of 1729 is quite clear. If a minister-candidate has some disagreement with the Standards, he must state his exceptions in full. After this, the presbytery must act specifically to approve or disapprove each stated exception. If the exception is denied, but the presbytery believes that the minister is still acceptable, then the Presbytery must determine if the minister's view may be taught, or if he must teach the Church's position. Period. If he violates this rule, or exhibits through his teaching, preaching, or practice that he has differences with the Standards that he has not stated, then he must be disciplined. Period. (Examples of exceptions EPC presbyteries have disallowed while approving the minister are paedo-communion and re-baptism. These may not be practiced, taught, or allowed by any minister in the presbyteries that have disallowed the exceptions, though the ministers may serve if they are in full submission.) 

6) Final thought: one of the main issues involved in this is that, for the most part, Presbyterians are no longer catholic. Now, I don't mean that we aren't *Roman*. We haven't been Roman since the Reformation. But we *are* supposed to be catholic. We are universal Christians. As such, we are to hold the Patristic standard that if we claim to have God as our Father, than we have the Church as our mother. And if the Church, acting in the Name of the Bridegroom & holding the keys of the Kingdom, has determined through the courts of the Church that our teaching standard is "x," then as those who are ordained to serve in humility and submission, we must submit, in humility, to the teaching authority of the Lord Jesus, Who acts to govern His Church through the presbyters acting under the power of jurisdiction. If we don't like it, then we have Luther's choice: submit until we are called to submit to heresy, and then raise the standard of Reformation. 

The Confessional standards of the Church are always "our confession" before they are "my confession," at least for ordained ministers, elders, and deacons. We take a holy vow before God and His Church to submit, and to teach accordingly. To violate that vow is to commit the sin of Achan. It is to be a covenant-breaker, an idolator of self. It is to set the self up against the Church of God, and is contempt of the established order of the same. 

"Let not many of you desire to be teachers, knowing that you will face a harsher judgment."


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Austin said:


> Here are my 1st few thoughts on the matter:
> 
> 1) Amending the confessional standards is about as wise as skating on thin ice on a warm day. Or dancing while blindfolded and drunk on the edge of a cliff. At night. Every time it has been attempted (with the exception of cutting out the parts about Erastianism and the Pope being the Antichrist) it has been a source of more trouble than it was worth. Often it has been used by wily non-confessional types (or the Devil, plain & simple) to erode the faith once delivered to the saints. Have any of us looked at the PCUSA's "Book of Confessions," or noted how its adoption was intended by the modernists to make subscription impossible?
> 
> 2) In my denomination (the EPC), we have adopted the ridiculous "Modern Language Version" of the Standards. The WSC revision is has been modernized in such a way that actual memorization is well-nigh impossible. (But who, other than RTS students & a few godly folk scattered here & there still have to memorize it?) The prose is clunky, and the attempts to eliminate 17th Century verbiage is about as smooth and useful as the people who destroy the flow & rhyming of hymns in order to replace the words "Thee," "Thou," "Thy," etc with the modern 2nd person pronouns. (As if anyone REALLY has any trouble knowing what those words mean!) The EPC's WCF revision has two *massive* flaws. One is that it includes the wretched additional chapters (adopted around the turn of the 20th Century by the UPCUSA & PCUS) on "The Love of God and Missions" and "Of the Holy Spirit." Now, while someone may say that the Standards needed chapters on these things, surely every one of the Divines is rotating in his grave knowing that these chapters have introduced an Amyraldianism which runs counter to the rest of the WCF. Further, who seriously believes that the WCF needed a chapter on evangelism? what, like the Divines, or any real Christian, could have fully subscribed and then coldly rejected Christ's Great Commission? Whatever. The other error is found in ch.2, where it states that God has no "emotions." The intent was to modernize the word "passions" (as if the word needed modernization). But they made a mistake. I asked one of the guys on the team that did it (in the 1970s, before the EPC existed) why they made this change. His answer: "It was late and we missed it in the editing process." (!!!!) Now I use this as a shibboleth to see if candidates have actually read the EPC version that they are subscribing to. Almost none notice it. (What does that say about their dedication to truth?)
> 
> 3) As Scott has so aptly stated, the issue at hand is one of Church Discipline. Let your 'yea' be 'yea' and your 'nay' be 'nay.' Do not bear false witness. if you are unable, in faith, to subscribe to the Standards, or if you are unwilling to state exceptions for some reason, then go join the Evangelical Free Church or some other confession-free denomination. There is nothing that sends me into apoplexy more than candidates for ordination or transfer who state no exceptions (or state too few), and then prove through their exams that they are liars, knaves, or fools. If you aren't down with six-day creation, say so, for God's sake. If you want to take your kids to Disneyland on the Sabbath Day, then state a freaking exception! If, in your unparalleled wisdom, have concluded that Scofield and Chafer were right, THEN STATE A DAMNED EXCEPTION!
> 
> On the other hand, what comes in a close second is these sons of Belial who come forward stating exceptions to things that NO ONE with a modicum of understanding of the Standards would EVER state. For instance, why do I see occasional exceptions against the WCF's position regarding monastic vows? What the h*** is that? I have been told to my face by recently approved candidates that they've never *read* the WLC or WSC. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Some have said that they never studied any but the WCF, and that in a cursory fashion. (I am convinced from examinations that many of these who say that they *have* studied in such a cursory fashion are liars. They just don't want to get in trouble. But when you cannot enunciate the basic doctrines of Reformed soteriology, sacramentology, or the Covenant, then you have no clue what's in the Standards.)
> 
> 4) With the state of the Church as it is, even in our Reformed circles, are these morons, liars, false-professors, covenant breakers, etc the kinds of people we want *voting* in a General Assembly about such matters? Come on.
> 
> 5) RE: exceptions -- The Adopting Act of 1729 is quite clear. If a minister-candidate has some disagreement with the Standards, he must state his exceptions in full. After this, the presbytery must act specifically to approve or disapprove each stated exception. If the exception is denied, but the presbytery believes that the minister is still acceptable, then the Presbytery must determine if the minister's view may be taught, or if he must teach the Church's position. Period. If he violates this rule, or exhibits through his teaching, preaching, or practice that he has differences with the Standards that he has not stated, then he must be disciplined. Period. (Examples of exceptions EPC presbyteries have disallowed while approving the minister are paedo-communion and re-baptism. These may not be practiced, taught, or allowed by any minister in the presbyteries that have disallowed the exceptions, though the ministers may serve if they are in full submission.)
> 
> 6) Final thought: one of the main issues involved in this is that, for the most part, Presbyterians are no longer catholic. Now, I don't mean that we aren't *Roman*. We haven't been Roman since the Reformation. But we *are* supposed to be catholic. We are universal Christians. As such, we are to hold the Patristic standard that if we claim to have God as our Father, than we have the Church as our mother. And if the Church, acting in the Name of the Bridegroom & holding the keys of the Kingdom, has determined through the courts of the Church that our teaching standard is "x," then as those who are ordained to serve in humility and submission, we must submit, in humility, to the teaching authority of the Lord Jesus, Who acts to govern His Church through the presbyters acting under the power of jurisdiction. If we don't like it, then we have Luther's choice: submit until we are called to submit to heresy, and then raise the standard of Reformation.
> 
> The Confessional standards of the Church are always "our confession" before they are "my confession," at least for ordained ministers, elders, and deacons. We take a holy vow before God and His Church to submit, and to teach accordingly. To violate that vow is to commit the sin of Achan. It is to be a covenant-breaker, an idolator of self. It is to set the self up against the Church of God, and is contempt of the established order of the same.
> 
> "Let not many of you desire to be teachers, knowing that you will face a harsher judgment."


 
Good words, Austin, except for the bit about Erastianism. The original confession already excluded Erasrianism. There was not a trace in there.


----------



## drphillips1

Most people that have commented on this thread seem to openly admit that many churches/pastors/elders of their own denomination do not fully adhere, nor believe the doctrines in the WCF and its connected documents. So my question then is, why change the document that has solidified, and unified the reformed faith for the last 300 years? It is obvious that the standards have not changed, we as a body, have allowed the "Jacob Harminsens" of the world to sneakily enter their heresies into our churches. So instead of simply changing our foundation, why not just get rid of the termites?


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]*Rev. Olive, let me thank you for the forceful and vigorous post. I understand your disgust and I agree with your exhortation. 

But may I also recommend that you revise some of the stronger language in your post? Judging from the context, you are using terms as expletives, not really in their native meaning, and we don't encourage the use of expletives on the board.*[/Moderator]



Austin said:


> Here are my 1st few thoughts on the matter:
> 
> 1) Amending the confessional standards is about as wise as skating on thin ice on a warm day. Or dancing while blindfolded and drunk on the edge of a cliff. At night. Every time it has been attempted (with the exception of cutting out the parts about Erastianism and the Pope being the Antichrist) it has been a source of more trouble than it was worth. Often it has been used by wily non-confessional types (or the Devil, plain & simple) to erode the faith once delivered to the saints. Have any of us looked at the PCUSA's "Book of Confessions," or noted how its adoption was intended by the modernists to make subscription impossible?
> 
> 2) In my denomination (the EPC), we have adopted the ridiculous "Modern Language Version" of the Standards. The WSC revision is has been modernized in such a way that actual memorization is well-nigh impossible. (But who, other than RTS students & a few godly folk scattered here & there still have to memorize it?) The prose is clunky, and the attempts to eliminate 17th Century verbiage is about as smooth and useful as the people who destroy the flow & rhyming of hymns in order to replace the words "Thee," "Thou," "Thy," etc with the modern 2nd person pronouns. (As if anyone REALLY has any trouble knowing what those words mean!) The EPC's WCF revision has two *massive* flaws. One is that it includes the wretched additional chapters (adopted around the turn of the 20th Century by the UPCUSA & PCUS) on "The Love of God and Missions" and "Of the Holy Spirit." Now, while someone may say that the Standards needed chapters on these things, surely every one of the Divines is rotating in his grave knowing that these chapters have introduced an Amyraldianism which runs counter to the rest of the WCF. Further, who seriously believes that the WCF needed a chapter on evangelism? what, like the Divines, or any real Christian, could have fully subscribed and then coldly rejected Christ's Great Commission? Whatever. The other error is found in ch.2, where it states that God has no "emotions." The intent was to modernize the word "passions" (as if the word needed modernization). But they made a mistake. I asked one of the guys on the team that did it (in the 1970s, before the EPC existed) why they made this change. His answer: "It was late and we missed it in the editing process." (!!!!) Now I use this as a shibboleth to see if candidates have actually read the EPC version that they are subscribing to. Almost none notice it. (What does that say about their dedication to truth?)
> 
> 3) As Scott has so aptly stated, the issue at hand is one of Church Discipline. Let your 'yea' be 'yea' and your 'nay' be 'nay.' Do not bear false witness. if you are unable, in faith, to subscribe to the Standards, or if you are unwilling to state exceptions for some reason, then go join the Evangelical Free Church or some other confession-free denomination. There is nothing that sends me into apoplexy more than candidates for ordination or transfer who state no exceptions (or state too few), and then prove through their exams that they are liars, knaves, or fools. If you aren't down with six-day creation, say so, for God's sake. If you want to take your kids to Disneyland on the Sabbath Day, then state a freaking exception! If, in your unparalleled wisdom, have concluded that Scofield and Chafer were right, THEN STATE A DAMNED EXCEPTION!
> 
> On the other hand, what comes in a close second is these sons of Belial who come forward stating exceptions to things that NO ONE with a modicum of understanding of the Standards would EVER state. For instance, why do I see occasional exceptions against the WCF's position regarding monastic vows? What the h*** is that? I have been told to my face by recently approved candidates that they've never *read* the WLC or WSC. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Some have said that they never studied any but the WCF, and that in a cursory fashion. (I am convinced from examinations that many of these who say that they *have* studied in such a cursory fashion are liars. They just don't want to get in trouble. But when you cannot enunciate the basic doctrines of Reformed soteriology, sacramentology, or the Covenant, then you have no clue what's in the Standards.)
> 
> 4) With the state of the Church as it is, even in our Reformed circles, are these morons, liars, false-professors, covenant breakers, etc the kinds of people we want *voting* in a General Assembly about such matters? Come on.
> 
> 5) RE: exceptions -- The Adopting Act of 1729 is quite clear. If a minister-candidate has some disagreement with the Standards, he must state his exceptions in full. After this, the presbytery must act specifically to approve or disapprove each stated exception. If the exception is denied, but the presbytery believes that the minister is still acceptable, then the Presbytery must determine if the minister's view may be taught, or if he must teach the Church's position. Period. If he violates this rule, or exhibits through his teaching, preaching, or practice that he has differences with the Standards that he has not stated, then he must be disciplined. Period. (Examples of exceptions EPC presbyteries have disallowed while approving the minister are paedo-communion and re-baptism. These may not be practiced, taught, or allowed by any minister in the presbyteries that have disallowed the exceptions, though the ministers may serve if they are in full submission.)
> 
> 6) Final thought: one of the main issues involved in this is that, for the most part, Presbyterians are no longer catholic. Now, I don't mean that we aren't *Roman*. We haven't been Roman since the Reformation. But we *are* supposed to be catholic. We are universal Christians. As such, we are to hold the Patristic standard that if we claim to have God as our Father, than we have the Church as our mother. And if the Church, acting in the Name of the Bridegroom & holding the keys of the Kingdom, has determined through the courts of the Church that our teaching standard is "x," then as those who are ordained to serve in humility and submission, we must submit, in humility, to the teaching authority of the Lord Jesus, Who acts to govern His Church through the presbyters acting under the power of jurisdiction. If we don't like it, then we have Luther's choice: submit until we are called to submit to heresy, and then raise the standard of Reformation.
> 
> The Confessional standards of the Church are always "our confession" before they are "my confession," at least for ordained ministers, elders, and deacons. We take a holy vow before God and His Church to submit, and to teach accordingly. To violate that vow is to commit the sin of Achan. It is to be a covenant-breaker, an idolator of self. It is to set the self up against the Church of God, and is contempt of the established order of the same.
> 
> "Let not many of you desire to be teachers, knowing that you will face a harsher judgment."


----------



## beej6

(rant on) 

In my (apparently minority position of) support for a new confession, nowhere did I say the standards involved should be "broadened." 

I daresay the Westminster Divines would be shocked to find that we were still relying on their excellent work some 400 odd years later. Or perhaps flattered.

Rev. Stellman must be aware that the OPC and PCA have attempted to unite several times without much success. I daresay that if it were allowed to have either the WCF or 3FU as secondary standards, that there would be more chance the OPC and URCNA would unite. But that's simply this poor layman's view of recent church history. I actually would support Prof. Godfrey's proposal for NAPARC to function as a sort of super-Synod, that NAPARC members would unite as one church. Perhaps at that level a new, complementary, modern confession could be written. If not, any unity is simply an illusion anyway.

(rant off)


----------



## Kaalvenist

Austin said:


> Amending the confessional standards is about as wise as skating on thin ice on a warm day. Or dancing while blindfolded and drunk on the edge of a cliff. At night.


This one probably ought to be framed.


----------

