# What exactly is a Confession?



## lynnie (Apr 30, 2010)

If I win the award for dumbest question ever here, that's OK 

What is a Confession of faith? What I mean is, if people can take exceptions, then how is it a confession of the faith?

Is it supposed to be a confession of the rock bottom faith ( trinity, diety, solas, TULIP) and some of it is non essentials, like the Sabbath or second commandment? If that is the case and people can take exceptions, then why don't denominations just get out a pair of scizzors and cut out the parts you can have exceptions to? Why is it called a confession of what we believe, if it really is not?

I used to say I was confessional with a few exceptions. But I feel hypocritical saying that anymore, I mean, isn't it more honest to just say you are not confessional?

Why isn't there a modern confession in the PCA that just eliminates the exception parts? What is the point of even having a confession that you call a confession of the faith, if you don't have to believe all of it?

I have queue of books to read from here to the moon, so telling me about another book isn't going to help ( thanks anyway). But if anybody can briefly explain how exceptions are supposed to be understood when you have a confession I would appreciate it. They seem dumb at best, and dishonest at worse, to me, so I'd really like to understand it better. Thanks. And I don't mean to criticize everybody here with exceptions, I just can figure it out. How can you say you are confessional, unless you say the confession is partly irrelevant or wrong and your exception is right?


----------



## Cato (Apr 30, 2010)

Wow, loaded question Lynnie....something Im glad you asked because Ive had those same questions. Lets sit back in NJ together & let the experts sign in on this shall we.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 30, 2010)

There are churches that require very close subscription to the letter of a Confession, for everyone, members included.

Then, there are churches that require one level of adherence for ministers, and none for members.

The closeness of adherence to the letter (belief in the Scriptural accuracy of the doctrines) may vary from one church body to another, who all claim to be "confessional" WRT the same document. And, there are "families" of documents, so we have a "cloud" of Reformed Confessions, some of which are more central to the tradition than others.

I would picture Confession beginning by thinking of a car. Lots of parts; complex construction. There are some basics, however, that various cars have. There may be some strong opinions, however, on what at a minimum constitutes a car.

Then, there may be those who think that one should really drive one make of car to the preference of others. And they may have all kinds of reasons--construction, materials, design, history (personal, company, etc.), labor, etc.

The car itself, as it belongs to a person, is one's Faith, his religion. Then, the schematic is the Confession, that describes the Faith. (If you wonder where the Bible fits into the illustration, it is definitely in the vehicle itself, not the schematic; perhaps we could say that the Word is embedded in each piece of the car--the Word predetermines the essential functionality of the car, or precludes the functionality of someone just throwing the parts together any old way, and calling it a car). This car has been provided to the person: he did not create the car. The car has an existence that was not dependent on the person who now holds that car. Its form was pre-existent.

If you build your own car, then clearly you are in a unique position. If you build... "something," and call it a "car"... you may have to convince people to believe in your product. Especially if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... 

Now, how closely does your schematic correlate to the Faith you drive? Do you have any "aftermarket" additions? Did you change your radio from the factory model? If you switch the engine out (and put a different car manufacturer's under the hood) is that the same car? I think that' a major change--probably the schematic/confession doesn't really describe that Faith accurately anymore. But, perhaps a radio-switchout doesn't really "change" your commitment to the model, and the schematic still functions brilliantly to describe the car.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 30, 2010)

_The car itself, as it belongs to a person, is one's Faith, his religion. Then, the schematic is the Confession, that describes the Faith. (If you wonder where the Bible fits into the illustration, it is definitely in the vehicle itself, not the schematic; perhaps we could say that the Word is embedded in each piece of the car--the Word predetermines the essential functionality of the car, or precludes the functionality of someone just throwing the parts together any old way, and calling it a car). This car has been provided to the person: he did not create the car. The car has an existence that was not dependent on the person who now holds that car. Its form was pre-existent._


Bruce- I thought the writers of the Confessions defined what a true safe car is to guard the flock as they drive down the highway to heaven. And if somebody says they don't think they need certain parts of the car- the seatbelts, the airbags, the shatterproof glass- then is the car still safe? How do you decide what is just a radio and what is safe?


If you can take exceptions and still have a car, then when does it become a golf cart? If Presbytery says it is OK to have a golf cart, as long as it has four wheels and an engine and brakes and transmission, then fine, why this pretense that we are car people? If we don't have to have what defined the original car, then why don't we say we are car and golf cart people? Horse and buggy people too for that matter?

What is the point of hanging on to the original specs for the cars, if the sabbath does not matter and 2nd commandment does not matter and two kingdoms does not matter (or whatever). Why don't we just be honest and cut the exceptions out of the confession, and say that as long as you don't walk down the road in your own strength, but rely on a basic vehicle, you are on the true path of faith?

I am NOT saying the confession is wrong, please do not misunderstand. But if it is supposed to represent safe driving, then how do you decide what is a safety feature and what is just extra comfort in your car? Why claim that our car is the original plan when we left out some things in the original blueprint?


----------



## Cato (Apr 30, 2010)

Bruce, what if you are a member of a church w/o confessions? My brother's church operates off.....not let me make sure Ive got this right "Solo Scripture" IE Bible & bible only!


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 30, 2010)

Lynnie, you're assuming "big" exceptions like WRT commandments, but do you really mean to say no exceptions? What about the (hypothetical) URCNA minister who's thoroughly Reformed in every respect (let's even say he's EP, just for good measure), but he isn't 100% sure that Paul is the author of Hebrews, as the Belgic confession states (If I recall correctly). Can't he have that exception and still be confessional? It's not the regulative principle; it's the authorship of Hebrews -- the author doesn't identify himself, and church tradition is far from unanimous.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 30, 2010)

austin, lately I have been thinking of the debate about the sabbath. I don't know what I think, and I am reading Gaffin's book on Calvin and the Sabbath ( very interesting). Maybe someday I will come to a definite personal conclusion.

But if an elder can skip church once or more a year for leisure fun, and go out to eat after church, and it is OK with the denomination to take sabbath exceptions, then I just don't see the personal integrity in saying "I am confessional" or "We are confessional" . I mean, you are not, are you? Why don't we update the "confession of faith" if it is not part of the faith? If it doesn't really matter to the faith, why leave it in? I just don't get it.

As far as your example, if he can take an exception, then why is that Belgic confession a denominational statement of the faith? Why is it not revised to eliminate the Hebrews authorship?

Why is anything a confession of faith if you don't have to believe it?

I don't know why but I find this frustrating. I am in a new church and I asked the pastor early on if they were confessional and he said no, and it bothered for me a little while. He loves the WCF and quotes it, but their "essentials" would be more the Sinclair Ferguson book " The Christian Life". Non essentials are paedo-credo, Sabbath, RPW, 2nd commandment ( ie kiddie bible story books), perpetuity of gifts, etc.
Funny, but in retrospect, it seems more honest than being in a confessional church where Sabbath, 2nd command, RPW, etc does not matter (credo/ paedo is usually essential). I am still trying to sort it out mentally. I feel safer now actually, I mean, the cards are on the table up front, and nobody is saying they are confessional with exceptions, and holding up the confession as a standard but you don't have to believe it all. I figure if you don't have to hold to the standard, then cut out all the non essentials and stop playing games. Let Ferguson's book be the new standard. Or TULIP/solas/ deity/trinity. 

I can imagine some guys here reading this and being horrified.....but think of me as the average layman trying to figure out why something is called a confession of faith, but it is OK not to believe parts of it, and try to explain it to me. The car thing isn't doing it, much as I respect Bruce.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 30, 2010)

The simplest way to understand what is a "Confession" and what is a "Confessional" church is to say it is the basic standard which the church "confesses," says to the world is a faithful summary of the doctrine of the whole of Scripture.

Now, the framework is not individuals, brand new believers and mature believers to independently determine by consensus what they believe. Rather, their beliefs are to be tested by the confession, not the reverse.

Although almost all confessional churches have formal mechanisms for dealing with incidental differences with statements and/or propositions of doctrine, the confession remains the standard.

In the case of the historic Confessions- Westminster, the Three Forms of Unity, the London Baptist- they are time tested summaries which form the basis of unity of their communion. It ought provide us great comfort that there is such an extremely high level of agreement among them.

That is, in itself, a testimony of the witness of Church history, which we can only believe has been superintended by God Himself. 

The Scriptures are, in the end, the basis of communion, but it is agreement of the summary of what they say that binds them together for accountability, and in unity.

Without a confession, it is really the shifting consensus of leadership at a given point of time.

So, if you were like many of us, it began with an Arminian influenced understanding of salvation, a dispensational framework, and a low view of the church and the sacraments. Along the way, leaders maybe grew and saw (what these Confessions all hold) that God does salvation, not man. And as they discovered that doctrine was necessarily related to that, they either fell out with the majority that did not believe it, or migrated to a communion that did.

In reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

That's based on something more profound- the doctrine of perspicuity. That is, the whole of Scripture speaks one coherent message of redemption, which God intends His creatures to understand... and covenant to live by in this world.

In the end, there is no way to approach this unless one has faith that God has not left His people without specific witness, that they might obey, honor and glorify Him in the way He has revealed.... forever.


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 30, 2010)

I guess simply put: How much can one take out or amend before one is not considered Confessional anymore? Is it all or nothing?


----------



## Andres (Apr 30, 2010)

Lynnie, I would just like to add that every church has some type of confession they adhere to. They don't always call it a confession, but all those "statements of faith" or "what we believe" are basically confessions. Why are they good and in my opinion, neccessary? They are neccessary to distinguish what kind of church it is. For example, someone mentioned a church above that says their confession is the bible only. Okay fine. So all you are going to say is that you believe the bible. Assemblies of God say they believe the bible. So do Baptists. Presbyterians say they believe the bible. Methodists, Church of Christ, and Lutherans all claim to believe the bible too. Even Mormons and Jehovah's Witness claim they believe the bible! My point is that even though all these churches say they believe the bible, they are all different, some very different. The reason is they all have different understandings of scripture. This is one big purpose of a confession - to spell out how a church understands scripture. 
No as to how someone can have an exception to a confession, basically they are saying, "I agree with you (church) on everything but this one area. I understand this differently than you do." Just because someone has one exception though would not be a good reason to throw out the whole confession. It's still neccessary for a foundation. If you're asking for a specific number as to how many exceptions can someone hold before they are considered non-confessional, I don't really have an answer for you. Sorry.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 30, 2010)

You ask good questions, and several different ones.

We might separate what is a confession from how differences to them are treated.

I think that while these are related, they really are different questions.

One cannot presume perfect obedience to confession by creatures which are affected by sin.



lynnie said:


> austin, lately I have been thinking of the debate about the sabbath. I don't know what I think, and I am reading Gaffin's book on Calvin and the Sabbath ( very interesting). Maybe someday I will come to a definite personal conclusion.
> 
> I have not read this, but understand it is well written.
> 
> ...


 
In the self centered rampant individualism of our generation, it is perfectly understandable that many would pick up the idea that they are, without reference to God, His Word, or his neighbor to determine all things.

To state it most directly, all the matters is what I want, what I think right now...and all things will be determined, including God, from that vantage point.

But it is just not that way. Not really. Not in the Kingdom of God.

Such is actually detestable in our Creator's sight.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Apr 30, 2010)

Andres said:


> Lynnie, I would just like to add that every church has some type of confession they adhere to. They don't always call it a confession, but all those "statements of faith" or "what we believe" are basically confessions.



The same holds true for "non-denominational" churches, which are so common. Of course, they are denominational! They all share whatever the common denominator(s) is/are that hold them together. They may not share those exact denominators with other churches and, therefore, are a denomination of one, but there is no such thing as a non-denominational church. Likewise, as you say, every church, consequently has a confession. It spells out what those denominators are that hold the body together. The difference with truly confessional bodies is that they are held together by a set of common denominators that have stood the test of time and not been subject to the "inspiration" of charismatic leaders who come and go. Sometimes confessions are altered (such as the OPC version of the SCF), but these changes are enacted carefully and after much deliberation.
It is similar to the US Constitution. Laws may be passed which allow or disallow conduct within the broader interpretation of the Constitution. However, to alter the substance of the Constitution (i.e., amend it) is a much more involved process.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 30, 2010)

Scott- I understand that we cannot fully hold to it and fully obey it. 

I understand that we can say we believe in justification by faith and fall into subtle works righteousness. We can say we believe in election and then act like it is up to us to save our kids. We can say we are strict about the sabbath and let our mind wander all over during a sermon.

But you are PCA. So how can somebody in the PCA say that the confession is the standard, and elders must believe it, but not really all of it?

Even though we are blind and sinful and fallen, the PCA will not allow FV. They won't allow Arminianism. They won't allow new Charismatic revelation. They won't allow their blind and sinful and fallen elders to believe certain things. Can you be PCA and deny the trinity, or deity of Jesus? No.

So I come back to what Kiffin said......how can you say it is the Standard but some things are OK to not believe? How do you pick and choose? How can you say you are Confessional, but some of the confession is not necessary to believe?

Hey, I am in the teeny camp that thinks the Pope may well indeed turn out to be the end time antichrist. I am not up for saying those WCF writers are wrong about anything. But in the PCA it is fine to say they are wrong about things. So why are those things still part of the PCA confession?


_What is implicit in your question is that each person has both a comprehensive understanding of their confession and receive it, in every detail, at all times. We know that, due to the fall, this is not so. _

Scott, that doesn't work. FV is not OK. You MUST have a comprehensive understanding of justification by faith. You MUST have a comprehensive understanding of the trinity. And the canon. Etc.

So why don't we take a pair of scizzors and cut out everything that we don't need to understand?

Don't get me wrong here.....I may end up die hard, all the way, confessional. But what I won't be anymore is saying I am confessional, even though I am not sure I believe what it says on having money in a bank that practices usury, and sabbath and my kiddie bible books. I am tired of feeling like a hypocrite. Make sense?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 30, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Bruce- I thought the writers of the Confessions defined what a true safe car is to guard the flock as they drive down the highway to heaven. And if somebody says they don't think they need certain parts of the car- the seatbelts, the airbags, the shatterproof glass- then is the car still safe? How do you decide what is just a radio and what is safe?


The problem for us is the necessity to distinguish between the unalterable and certain Word of God, and our less-than-perfect efforts at explaining in our own (man's) words what the sure Word means, and does not mean.

The language used historically by Presbyteries in this country regarding individually held "variances" or "exceptions" to the Confession is by the question: _Does the exception strike at the vitals of our faith/religion as it is commonly confessed?_

In other words,, unless we are going to demand full and exception-free subscription (and some churches do this), we (ministers and elders) cannot escape the duty as guardians of the church to judge how far away from our defined system of doctrine (found in the confessional schematic) a man's views may take him, and we will permit him his "liberty of conscience." Examination, and ordination or reception by the Presbytery are the main "gates" through which a man must pass. Truly, if we want to remain a "Reformed" church, then we ought to make very little exceptional room. Because the truth is that the Confessions DO define what it means to be Reformed.

The argument has to some degree been a tug-of-war for nearly 300 years now on this continent in Presbyterian circles. Loose or tight subscription. The looser it is, it seems more likely the church will liberalize. The tighter it is, the more we seem in danger of forgetting our duty to know the Bible better than our Confession. And some churches have liberalized under strict-subscription rules, a revolution within the form.

The simplest answer I can give you is that every generation has a never-ending battle to make these critical judgments, and not to neglect the study of our doctrine, or take anything for granted. What is a radio? What is a seatbelt? (to use the analogy) Again, the issues come down to Christ and the gospel. To Christian essentials, outside which there is no definition.




> If you can take exceptions and still have a car, then when does it become a golf cart? If Presbytery says it is OK to have a golf cart, as long as it has four wheels and an engine and brakes and transmission, then fine, why this pretense that we are car people? If we don't have to have what defined the original car, then why don't we say we are car and golf cart people? Horse and buggy people too for that matter?


Again, these are THE questions that every Presbytery has to keep wrestling with, a never ending battle until we get to heaven. If it was easy to "keep the faith," churches never would have fallen in heresy since the days of the Apostles. If the church goes too far, then they will end up with a useless piece of junk, that may or may not look vaguely like a car.



> What is the point of hanging on to the original specs for the cars, if the sabbath does not matter and 2nd commandment does not matter and two kingdoms does not matter (or whatever). Why don't we just be honest and cut the exceptions out of the confession, and say that as long as you don't walk down the road in your own strength, but rely on a basic vehicle, you are on the true path of faith?


Well, if we get rid of anything like a common confession, then we will have as many definitions of "Christian" as we have people who want their own idea of Christian. Creeds help us to maintain some semblance of a "faith-once-delivered." All heretics quote Scripture. We need the confessions to at least help us out here. And we want to have a little bit of charity. And too much.



> I am NOT saying the confession is wrong, please do not misunderstand. But if it is supposed to represent safe driving, then how do you decide what is a safety feature and what is just extra comfort in your car? Why claim that our car is the original plan when we left out some things in the original blueprint?


Again, good questions. Just don't forget what we're trying to accomplish.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 30, 2010)

> What is implicit in your question is that each person has both a comprehensive understanding of their confession and receive it, in every detail, at all times. We know that, due to the fall, this is not so.
> 
> 
> *lynnie*
> ...



We understand that in the PCA, at least, that members actually do not have to have that comprehensive understanding, far less agreement with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine. So, we are talking primarily about officers. We are talking about members in the sense that they take on oath to peaceably learn the church's doctrine and submit to her government and discipline.

Those exceptions requested are evaluated really in the context of the totality of the officer candidates view.

One's view that say, the sabbath recreation clause in Westminster XXI might be isolated within that. In other words, they might believe that the forth command requires advance preparation, holiness, abstaining from work, and that it is an important part of the regulative principle of worship- everything else in the whole of the Westminster Standards. They might even distinguish that recreation is okay provided one does not work (sweat) in their recreation, (going back to an Old Testament reference).

If everything else was right, and the person was willing to acknowledge the confessional stand (recreation, ordinarily, is to be abstained for in the holiness and ceasing of the Lord's Day), and perhaps even open to study it further...

This does not at all seem to be a "cut and paste" of the Confession.

I think that kind of evaluation actually shows how high a regard it is held, and how seriously the candidate takes his vow.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with this difference, nor that I would vote to approve a candidate with such view, only to give an example of how this is not quite the "all or nothing" proposition you describe it as.

The exceptions do not prove the rule. They are still exceptions, with consequences.

Let's say that after the federal government imposed a 55mph speed limit on the states, a person takes exception to it. They point out that while they understand it is the law and they will get a ticket for exceeding it, they do not agree with. They explain reasonably, thoughtfully that the road was engineered for 70mph, that the speed limit was 70mph in the past, that the flow of traffic is 70mph and that makes 70mph safer than 55mph. Further, they agree that, while they disagree with the law and even its premise, they will abide by 55mph while in the state. Further yet, they do agree with every other traffic regulation in the state and agree to abide by it.

It might be reasonable to conclude this does not pose a threat to the rule of law, the state, or even the 55mph limit itself.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 30, 2010)

Bruce, thanks, that was helpful with my general angst about all this. And I DO want to have a confession. " I believe the bible" is not enough. I just don't want to have one with statements that don't need to be believed.

Scott, your example is a good one to say _I think that kind of evaluation actually shows how high a regard it is held,_ But I am referring to, shall we say, quite a bit more liberty, like elders skipping church for fun. But never mind, I am out of the PCA now and I don't have to wrestle with it all.

_Further, they agree that, while they disagree with the law and even its premise, they will abide by 55mph while in the state._ 

Maybe it is different where you are. Up here, if you don't agree, you drive 70. You don't disagree and go 55. 

I can see that if you agree to abide by the entire confession even if you don't agree, that's confessional. But up here, an exception means you do not act according to the WCF. 

_Truly, if we want to remain a "Reformed" church, then we ought to make very little exceptional room. Because the truth is that the Confessions DO define what it means to be Reformed._

I tend to agree. So I guess on a personal level you would not be comfortable calling yourself confessional and taking several exceptions? 

I am thinking that I should say I am an amil Calvinist, as opposed to Dispensational Arminian, when asked, but not say I am "confesssional with exceptions." The term "Reformed" is so broad today I can use it with a clear conscience, but I don't see how I can say I am confessional anymore. I look back at my PCA experience, in general, as not confessional once you get past the basics. Sabbath, 2nd command, RPW, usury, etc........that's a lot of things to disregard in the denomination. And I don't see how you can take several exceptions and claim to be confessional.

So can you post here if you won't argue with the confession, but neither will you claim to be confessional anymore, it feels dishonest?


----------



## MW (Apr 30, 2010)

I believe an office-bearer should be able to say that the church's confession is the confession of his faith. It is required of a deacon to hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, 1 Timothy 3:9. It is required of a bishop to hold fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayer, Titus 1:9. If the bishop himself is a gainsayer it can only produce confusion and conflict in the church.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 30, 2010)

> *lynnie*
> 
> 
> Maybe it is different where you are. Up here, if you don't agree, you drive 70. You don't disagree and go 55.
> ...



Yes, one might disobey and drive 70mph in a 55mph zone, but one could still get a ticket for that, because of the standard. (Now if the standard is totally not enforced, that is another issue).

I think in many instances, if one was granted an exception, they would not be allowed to teach it. They certainly would not be allowed to misrepresent what the standard was. If they were allowed to teach their exception, it would likely only be after a respectful presentation of the confessional standard.

All that to say, that one exception does not necessarily render the whole confession void, nor make the person in a general sense unconfessional.


----------



## dudley (Apr 30, 2010)

Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is a self-sufficient revelation, the final authority on all Christian doctrine, and revealed all truth necessary for salvation. This concept we who are protestants is known as sola scriptura. As Protestants we characteristically believe that ordinary believers may reach an adequate understanding of Scripture because Scripture itself is clear (or "perspicuous"), because of the help of the Holy Spirit, or both. Martin Luther believed that without God's help Scripture would be "enveloped in darkness." He advocated "one definite and simple understanding of Scripture." John Calvin wrote, "all who...follow the Holy Spirit as their guide, find in the Scripture a clear light." The WCF , the LBC , the 3 Forms of Unity as Protestant Confessions were adopted as a declarations of doctrine by most European Reformed churches to give formal guidance to the believers who confessed faith in Christ alone as the means of eternal salvation.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 1, 2010)

*?*

Do we really want to say that two of the ten commandments are secondary issues?

Many people say they believe the bible. The real question becomes what do you think the bible teaches? That is what a confession seeks to address.

I hold to the 1689,although i think Nero was the anti-Christ, not the popes [who although they are anti-Christ.]..I do not think they are "the" anti-Christ spoken of in the confession. I do not want to throw out the whole confession ,because I think they were not correct on this one point.


----------



## lynnie (May 1, 2010)

_I think in many instances, if one was granted an exception, they would not be allowed to teach it. They certainly would not be allowed to misrepresent what the standard was. If they were allowed to teach their exception, it would likely only be after a respectful presentation of the confessional standard._

Yes, but they can be ordained with that exception....if it is about certain subjects. If it is about justifcation by faith, or the Holy Spirit being the third person of the trinity, or Jesus being eternal God, no, there is no exception. Ever. Not even in the slightest.

So some subjects in the confession are not really "the faith", they are non essentials. Or not so important essentials. 

I found myself wishing it was in writing in clear black and white back in the PCA......this is the part of the WCF that we really really really mean is the faith and you must confess it. And this part, well, take it or leave it.

Iconoclast- I don't want to throw the whole thing out either. Not at all!! I just want it honestly presented as what is orthodoxy and what is debatable. For the men who wrote it it was all orthodoxy. If we don't believe that any more, then shouldn't denominations be more honest with the members?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 1, 2010)

Lynnie,
For what it's worth, the form of the WCF adopted by the OPC and PCA amended the portion that states the pope IS the antichrist, removing it. So, that may be something someone thinks is biblical, however in these two churches we do not *confess* that notion together, one heart and mouth. The principle is, if we aren't willing to view a particular doctrinal understanding as necessary to hold if one is true to God in Scripture, then we ought not fix its form, and insist on subscription to it. Hence, the change from the original wording.

A man is required to make his exceptions known. Period. First to the congregation that might call him, and to the Presbytery that will ordain or receive him, and install him in that call. So, for example, I am not convinced that the Bible "frequently" uses the idea of "testament" (as in last will and testament) as a corollary to "covenant." But that is the Confession's declaration. Does this exception, which I duly noted when I was received by my Presbytery, undercut our Confession?

I know that my commitment to "covenant" language (in the NT) is MORE than the original Confessional drafters had in mind. I think "diatheke" should in ALL (but possibly a single) cases in the NT be translated "covenant," the direction that modern Bible translations have taken since the 17th century. One possible exception to the rule isn't "frequent" in my opinion.

I'm sorry that your experiences with one or another church was not ideal. But churches vary. There is no perfect, earthly expression of the church. Denominations are more or less unified. But lowest-common-denominator unity isn't much to work with. A Confession defines a wider base of concurrence, from which to build unity. But every form of words is subject to misunderstanding or disagreement. So, since our share in the mind of Christ is imperfect in this life, we must also decide how patient we will be with someone who is not aligned with the majority. Not every stick fits in the box.


----------



## Scott1 (May 1, 2010)

Lynnie,

It's not hard to understand the desire for no allowance for scruples, and for complete obedience in belief and practice... those are certainly aspirational goals.

But it would seem that would lead to a communion which allows no scruples (there are a few), rather than one that has no Confession at all.


----------



## lynnie (May 1, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Lynnie,
> 
> It's not hard to understand the desire for no allowance for scruples, and for complete obedience in belief and practice... those are certainly aspirational goals.
> 
> But it would seem that would lead to a communion which allows no scruples (there are a few), rather than one that has no Confession at all.



You are probably right. _But lowest-common-denominator unity isn't much to work with. _ Yup.

This is one of the subjects that will probably percolate around in my mind for a while. Thanks for the imput. 

I do know one thing, which is that I used to make assumptions about what Presbyterian elders probably believed on certain things, but I no longer do that. This board is significantly more conservative than what is out there, from my very limited experience.


----------

