# Who controls whom? The confessions or the churches



## Pergamum

Who controls who?

The Reformed Churches got together and wrote the WCF, and the Reformed Baptists wrote the 1689 later (based on the WCF). These existing bodies invented these confessions and the confessions were a product of these churches.

Now, churches are often a product shaped by these confessions. 

Which is subordinate to the other?

In 1788 the Presbyterians revised the WCF. Every so often people take exceptions to the WCF, desire to update it, or put it into "modern" language. Is this wrong or right, and why?

At the writing of the confessions those that were reformed wrote their beliefs down and this was put into the Confession. They defined what the reformed faith was. But now the confession defines what the reformed faith is. Thus, the reformed faith is fixed at a moment in time. 

How does this aquare with the battle cry of "Always reforming"?

What happens if a large body of the Reformed desire to revise the Confesssion again? What if 99% of the people hold to the 1788 revised version of the WCF - would they be more reformed than those who hold to the original WCF, or would those that hold to the original be "more reformed"?


----------



## Leslie

It seems that the churches should control the confessions and 'sola scriptura' should control both. It always irks me how preachers can spout 'sola scriptura' and then turn around and "prove" this or that thing from the confessions. With listening to some church history tapes, even the venerable John Knox who was an outstanding proponent of 'sola scriptura' went WAY beyond the scriptures in outlining the relationship of the civil government to the church and the relationship of both to God. Perhaps the confessions as well as church fathers would be more useful if those who cite these writings make it clear that "this is our understanding at this time, of the gist of the scriptural teaching regarding this issue". Otherwise we end of with de facto Catholicism, a new body of tradition as a second source of infallibile revelation. Logically, one has to do this because the confessions themselves claim the scriptures only as divine revelation. Thus they themselves deny that they are on the same level.


----------



## Poimen

The Reformed churches voluntary submitted (subscribed) to the confessions to express their unity in Christ to Rome and the civil government. Thus the confessions control the churches only insofar as they submit to the teachings therein. After all there are many Reformed denominations and congregations who could care less about their ecclesiastical symbols and history.

The phrase in its entirety reads:
_
ecclesia reformata semper reformanda_ which means 'the Church reformed and always reforming' 

When the Reformers reformed the church they did not do away with the sacraments, godly and holy worship, nor the central doctrines of the Christian faith. They reformed the church meaning that they sought to purify it of extraneous elements that obstructed the clear preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. 

In other words there was no novelty based upon a desire to change things for the sake of changing. They brought the Christian faith back to the scriptures particularly back to the purity of the Early Church. 

The Reformed confessions, like other ecclesiastical symbols, sought to bring unity amongst disunity and teach the basic doctrines of scripture. If the modern Reformed church wishes to change or amend them this should be done on the basis of the impurity of the statements therein but not to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## JOwen

The term "always reforming" is a static phrase as it pertains to its goal, which is a re-formation of the original. In battle, to re-form a line was to collapse to the original starting point of the axiom. In the same way, to say we are "always reforming", means we are constantly analyzing our current position with the direct focus of the original, and upon discovery of a tangential line, we collapse back to the original(The Word, Early Church, etc) . It does not mean new truth, but reforming the one truth, once given. There is a misconception in some (I do not mean you), that seems to believe that "always reforming", means changing the compass. This was never the intent of "always reforming". 
The reason we do not constantly come up with our own confessions of faith is that most of us can put our signature on the one we posses already (WCF, 3 Forms, Second London, Savoy, etc). No need to reinvent the wheel. My Church is not subordinate to the confessions but the Word of God, summarily codified in the 3 Forms of Unity. The Confession are subordinate to the Word, and we also. Truth is fixed in time, it is called the cannon. Yet we drift into liberalism, modernity, idolatry, etc, so we must be "always reforming." I hope this helps.


----------



## Poimen

Does 'always reforming' mean that our doctrine is or should always be open to revision or something else?

In other words is there anything in the church's teaching that is 'up for grabs'? The divinity of Christ? The atonement? etc.


----------



## Herald

Wow. Pergy, where to start first? Let me try to tackle your comments one by one.



> The Reformed Churches got together and wrote the WCF, and the Reformed Baptists wrote the 1689 later (based on the WCF).



I will allow a Presbyterian to defend their own confession. The 1689 LBC's relationship to the WCF is explained in the preface of the confession:



> and also when we observed that those last mentioned did in their Confessions (for reasons which seemed of weight both to themselves and others) choose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with the former in sense concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed, but also for the most part without any variation of the terms, we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both in these articles (which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine are the same with theirs; and this we did the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion, as also with many others whose orthodox Confessions have been published to the world on the behalf of the Protestant in diverse nations and cities. And also to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the Holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring, before God, angels, and men, our hearty agreement with them in that wholesome Protestant doctrine which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures, they have asserted. Some things, indeed, are in some places added, some terms omitted, and some few changed; but these alterations are of that nature as that we need not doubt any charge or suspicion of unsoundness in the faith from any of our brethren upon the account of them.



The framers of the 1689 LBC sought to maintain an almost word for word unity in those areas in which both agreed. Church polity and believers only baptism being the main areas of departure, there was no need to reword areas in which there was complete agreement. 

The English Baptists of the 17th century were not referred to as "Reformed Baptists." There were two predominant divisions of Baptist in 17th century England: the Strict (Particular Baptists) and the General Baptists. The Strict Baptists were known for their Calvinism while the General Baptists would fit nicely into what we call "four pointers." The term "Reformed Baptist" took hold in the last century. 



> Now, churches are often a product shaped by these confessions.
> 
> Which is subordinate to the other?



The church is established by God and made up of all those who have come to faith in Christ. The church, while paid for in blood, is grounded upon the word of God. The confessions are a commentary on scripture and Christian practice. The church is accountable to God, not the confessions. The confessions are accountable to scripture (if it is possible to assign accountability to a document). 



> In 1788 the Presbyterians revised the WCF. Every so often people take exceptions to the WCF, desire to update it, or put it into "modern" language. Is this wrong or right, and why?



The confessions are not infallible, therefore they are not beyond correction if they are proven to be inaccurate or in error. But before an addition, correction or omission is made, the burden of proof is on those who would offer such changes. They would need to prove to the church corporate that the confessions err. One may ask, "Why should the confessions be afforded such status as to be proven deficient?" Consider that the 1689 LBC and the WCF offer commentary on the most essential of Christian doctrines. The Christian faith is dependent on these doctrines since they operate together in harmony. 



> At the writing of the confessions those that were reformed wrote their beliefs down and this was put into the Confession. They defined what the reformed faith was. But now the confession defines what the reformed faith is. Thus, the reformed faith is fixed at a moment in time.
> 
> How does this aquare with the battle cry of "Always reforming"?



There is always a danger of the fox being put in charge of the hen house. But go back to my previous paragraph. If charges can be brought against any of the major confessions that are deficient, bring them forth. Let them be discussed and debated with scripture as the arbiter. But whereas the confessions were assembled by many men over a period of time, let any challenges be tested in a like manner so that there not be any rush to change sound doctrine. 

_Semper Reformanda_ is not always about uncovering new truth but in changing our own understanding and behaviors to be more biblical. 

Pergy, I think your last paragraph is adequately explained above.


----------



## JOwen

Pergamum said:


> Always reforming thus means the same thing as back to the Bible?



yep!


----------



## SolaScriptura

I think the relationship between church and confession is somewhat symbiotic. For the confession to have any real meaning then it must have some authority in the church. Yet for the confession to serve as a statement of what is believed and taught and considered to be acceptable, then the church must have some authority over what is actually stated in the confession.

A problem, as I see it, is that the Confession is venerated as an historical document to the point that we recoil in horrified shock at the proposition of altering the content therein even though in many respects the Confession does NOT accurately reflect what is believed, taught, or considered acceptable in the churches who supposedly subscribe to it. 

I know some here see the answer being to simply enforce strict subscription to the Confession, but let’s face it: in terms of that actually happening, that idea is nothing less than wishful thinking when dealing with a denomination of more than a handful of congregations.

I really think that the Confessional statements of a given body need to have authority, but at the same time they must reflect what is actually believed. If they don’t reflect what is believed and being taught, then they aren’t really – truly – the statements of belief for the church. 

The Confessional statements should have authority in that the churches and their elders should be required to conform to them. BUT, the churches should rethink their statements when the overwhelming majority doesn’t believe what is actually in the Confession. For example, let’s take the issue of the Lord’s Day. (Though for illustrative purposes I could have used a huge number of other issues!) Ok, I don’t know percentages, but I’m guessing that the majority take exception to the Standards in regards to the 4th Commandment. Our denomination allows these exceptions… indeed, I’ve heard of presbyteries that don’t even see the need for an exception to be declared when the candidate expresses views that are basically “evangelical.” So for the church as a whole to say, “We believe thus (what was written in the Standards over 300 years ago),” when it doesn’t, is essentially a lie. The church should state what IS believed and allow what IS taught to serve as the basis of authority and practice to direct and guide the church.

Now, some may think, “What you’re calling for is for a continually changing document that will have no authority because we’ll just change it whenever we want.” But I’m not calling for us to change things on a whim, or to rewrite the Confession just because a few people don’t agree with what is in it. I’m talking about what the course of action should be when there has been a wholesale shift in what is believed and taught by the vast majority of congregations and elders in our fellowship.

I for one am not satisfied with the status quo practice of saying “We receive the Westminster Standards as the confessional statements of our Church,” and yet we allow exceptions to all but a few of the most distinctively Reformed doctrines. Professing to confess a statement of faith which does not reflect what is really believed is mere traditionalism.


----------



## JBaldwin

I like what my pastor said this morning. The WCF can always be amended, but the Word of God does not change, so the confessions will always bow the knee to the Word of God.


----------



## vagabond

I love the confessions, and reading and studying them is a pleasure. But I like what John Frame said about confessions, though he holds them in high regard:



> "I do believe there is a danger in the evangelical churches of what I would call traditionalism. In traditionalism, the evangelical or Reformed faith is defined according to its history, in doctrine, worship, evangelism, and church life. And those who differ from those traditions, even on the basis of biblical arguments, are excluded. I’ve written a couple of articles recently on this subject. One is called “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism” which was published in the WTJ 1997 and also as an Appendix in my book Contemporary Worship Music: a Biblical Defense. In a situation like this, it is especially important that students become aware of what Scripture says on these matters and, equally importantly, what Scripture doesn’t say. It is only by means of careful exegesis that we will have a firm basis to distinguish which traditions are grounded in God’s Word and which ones are not. And, as with Luther and Calvin, it is important for us to maintain a critical stance toward the traditions of the church so we may have the freedom to apply the biblical principles in the fullest possible way to contemporary life and ministry.
> 
> "I look forward to the time when God will equip his church to write new confessions. The Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries are wonderful documents that have served the church well. But we need confessions that speak to the issues of our own time: abortion, postmodern ideology, egalitarianism, new spiritualities, ecumenism, the gifts of the Spirit, common grace, the precise role of the Mosaic law, the status of non-Christian religions, the obligation of Christians to the poor, the nature of worship, biblical standards for missions and evangelism, and, indeed, the nature of confessional subscription. We need confessions also that can state the old Reformed and biblical doctrines in contemporary language and support those doctrines with the biblical scholarship that has developed over the last 400 years. Perhaps we are not ready yet to write new confessions, granted the spiritual immaturity of the contemporary church and the proliferation of denominational division. But if we are ever to reach the point at which new confessions can be written, we need to train pastors and teachers for the church who are able to develop doctrinal formulations from the Word of God itself. And we need to graduate students who understand that the 16th and 17th century confessions are not the final word, that *there is much more that God calls us to say to the church and to the world*. "



This is from My Use of the Reformed Confessions. Used by permission. 

To clarify (see post below), Frame doesn't attack the Confessions in his call for renewal, but he does call for an intelligent acceptance rather than a blind one (in other words, a consideration of each tradition, comparing the confession with Scripture). In addition, in his hope for a new confession, Frame isn't saying the old ones are bad; he merely points out that there are more issues that should be addressed.


----------



## Herald

*MODERATOR HAT ON*

While the confessions are not inspired and not on par with scripture, nevertheless they are a tested and tried summary of the faith. I'll allow this thread to continue but I want to go on record (just in case) that the confessions are not to be attacked, directly or obliquely. I am not saying that anyone in this thread is leaning in that direction but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Carry on everyone.
*MODERATOR HAT OFF*


----------



## py3ak

In actual practice, of course the churches control the confessions. Why? Because the churches can refuse to prosecute confessional violations, and by censuring or not censuring, etc., they determine what parts of the confession are actually binding.

But as a matter of historical identification, the confessions set a standard that churches are not free to ignore. I think we would all agree that it would be absurd for a church that practiced paedo-baptism to call itself a baptist church. Not because paedobaptists don't have a right to the use of the term "baptist", but because historically "baptist" has been used almost as shorthand for "antipaedobaptist".


----------



## vagabond

My last post seemed like a tangent, but it was showing Frame's point that the churches submit the confessions (and thus themselves) to the control of the Word of God.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

North Jersey Baptist said:


> *MODERATOR HAT ON*
> 
> While the confessions are not inspired and not on par with scripture, nevertheless they are a tested and tried summary of the faith. I'll allow this thread to continue but I want to go on record (just in case) that the confessions are not to be attacked, directly or obliquely. I am not saying that anyone in this thread is leaning in that direction but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
> 
> Carry on everyone.
> *MODERATOR HAT OFF*



What exactly do you mean (for clarification)? I've noticed consistant dissent from both of the confessions (WCF and LBC 1689) here at the PuritanBoard. Both uphold a "Historicist" eschatology that very few people here agree with (this doesn't refer to me because I AM historicist). I'm just using that example to say it seems people have been given room to not completely agree with the confessions, so I assumed it was the norm.


----------



## CharlieJ

vagabond said:


> In addition, in his hope for a new confession, Frame isn't saying the old ones are bad; he merely points out that there are more issues that should be addressed.



It's interesting to examine what is in the confessions and what isn't. In an age that seems to tend toward reducing confessional content, it makes more sense to add to it, since there are more issues today than back in the 17th century. 



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

Relationship of Confessional churches to those of other beliefs.

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

Family and gender issues

Evangelism and Missions


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

SolaScriptura said:


> I think the relationship between church and confession is somewhat symbiotic. For the confession to have any real meaning then it must have some authority in the church. Yet for the confession to serve as a statement of what is believed and taught and considered to be acceptable, then the church must have some authority over what is actually stated in the confession.



 The church forms the Confessions based entirely on Scripture. Then of course the church should live up to its own Confessional standards, which are ultimately based in Scripture. So the Confessions arise from man's diligent study of the Bible, which in turn is the directive for what we believe and how we lead our lives, and is authoritative for each individual church (at least in the PCA and OPC). Plus, I like the word "symbiotic."


----------



## SolaScriptura

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Plus, I like the word "symbiotic."



Me too. I've had an affinity for the word ever since the "symbiote" was introduced in the Spider Man comics.


----------



## Herald

ManleyBeasley said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MODERATOR HAT ON*
> 
> While the confessions are not inspired and not on par with scripture, nevertheless they are a tested and tried summary of the faith. I'll allow this thread to continue but I want to go on record (just in case) that the confessions are not to be attacked, directly or obliquely. I am not saying that anyone in this thread is leaning in that direction but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
> 
> Carry on everyone.
> *MODERATOR HAT OFF*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean (for clarification)? I've noticed consistant dissent from both of the confessions (WCF and LBC 1689) here at the PuritanBoard. Both uphold a "Historicist" eschatology that very few people here agree with (this doesn't refer to me because I AM historicist). I'm just using that example to say it seems people have been given room to not completely agree with the confessions, so I assumed it was the norm.
Click to expand...


Manley,

The confessional requirements for PB membership are:



> Confessional Requirements: *One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver.* This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.



Manley, I think this is self explanatory. There are areas where the confessions are silent. They do not address each and every circumstance that a believer will encounter in their Christian walk. However, the confessions are _concordia cum veritate_, in harmony with truth. The burden rests on the one who questions the confessions to present their argument for consideration. It is for that reason that I posted that cautionary reminder.


----------



## Pilgrim

North Jersey Baptist said:


> The English Baptists of the 17th century were not referred to as "Reformed Baptists." There were two predominant divisions of Baptist in 17th century England: the Strict (Particular Baptists) and the General Baptists. The Strict Baptists were known for their Calvinism while the General Baptists would fit nicely into what we call "four pointers." The term "Reformed Baptist" took hold in the last century.




I'm not sure if the General Baptists necessarily held to a 4 point view. I believe many if not all of them were fully Arminian with views that are more or less similar to Free Will Baptists today.


----------



## MW

We would not say a Christian controls his confession. Rather, we say he is a Christian because of his confession. Likewise, it is a church because of its confession. The "rock" on which Jesus Christ builds His church is not Peter, but his confession. To say the church produces or controls the confession is Roman Catholicism.

We have had a discussion about "semper reformanda" on a previous occasion. It ought not to be translated "always reforming;" it is this mistranslation which leads to a conceptual problem for many people.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The English Baptists of the 17th century were not referred to as "Reformed Baptists." There were two predominant divisions of Baptist in 17th century England: the Strict (Particular Baptists) and the General Baptists. The Strict Baptists were known for their Calvinism while the General Baptists would fit nicely into what we call "four pointers." The term "Reformed Baptist" took hold in the last century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if the General Baptists necessarily held to a 4 point view. I believe many if not all of them were fully Arminian with views that are more or less similar to Free Will Baptists today.
Click to expand...


Chris, thank you for the mild correction. The English General Baptists certainly were Arminian.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

armourbearer said:


> We would not say a Christian controls his confession. Rather, we say he is a Christian because of his confession. Likewise, it is a church because of its confession. The "rock" on which Jesus Christ builds His church is not Peter, but his confession. To say the church produces or controls the confession is Roman Catholicism.
> 
> We have had a discussion about "semper reformanda" on a previous occasion. It ought not to be translated "always reforming;" it is this mistranslation which leads to a conceptual problem for many people.


This may be the the thread
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/what-proper-boundaries-theological-discussion-22124/#post275815


----------



## vagabond

Armourbearer,



> We would not say a Christian controls his confession. Rather, we say he is a Christian because of his confession. Likewise, it is a church because of its confession. The "rock" on which Jesus Christ builds His church is not Peter, but his confession. To say the church produces or controls the confession is Roman Catholicism.



I think that I understand your point; perhaps I don't. But if I understand correctly, I disagree. A Christian is a Christian because of his or her confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, as revealed in Scripture. He's not a Christian because of his subscription to a Confession (*I'll designate written church documents like WCF with a capital "C", as opposed to personal confessions like Peter's* Also, capital "C" in "the Church" denotes the universal Church, while a lowercase "church" is a local body or denomination). A church is a church because of this confession of Christ, not because of their Confession.

There are quite a few different Confessions held to by various believers around the world. Directed, of course, by the sovereignty of God in his or her life, if a believer holds to a set of convictions in line with a certain Confession, he may identify with that Confession. If, however, a believer (and usually a group of them) determines that their beliefs don't line up with an existing Confession, he / they might decide to produce a new / revised Confession.

This plurality of Biblical Confessions, bound by one confession in Christ, help to demonstrate that the central confession in Christ as Lord and Savior, in accordance with Scripture, makes a person a Christian and a church a church. While it is the Spirit and Word of God that (hopefully) control the writing of the Confessions, _the Confessions do not make a person Christian, nor do they make a church a church._ It's the heart confession -- like Peter's -- that makes a person a Christian and a church a church.

When I speak of a church "controlling" a Confession, I mean that the body writes or selects, and then down the road revises, rejects, or upholds, its Confession. It isn't Catholicism to say that a church "controls" Confessions, _in this sense_, directed, of course, by the sovereignty of God. It IS Catholicism to say the Church created the Bible (as Catholics tend to say), or that the Church creates/controls doctrine.
*
SUMMARY*: Our Sovereign God directs the Word to create the Church, the People of God. He's always formed His people with His Word, from Adam, to the call of Abraham, to the Mosaic Law, to Ezekiel's vision, to Christ -- the Living Word, to the final resurrection. He often directs a church to write a formal Confession. That Confession is a product of the church, with God's sovereign direction through the Spirit and Scripture. But the church _isn't_ the product of a Confession. A church can exist without a written formal Confession, as long as they have a uniting heart confession in Christ (as described above). A formal Confession, however, can't come into existence without a church.


----------



## MW

vagabond said:


> I think that I understand your point; perhaps I don't. But if I understand correctly, I disagree. A Christian is a Christian because of his or her confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, as revealed in Scripture. He's not a Christian because of his subscription to a Confession (*I'll designate written church documents like WCF with a capital "C", as opposed to personal confessions like Peter's*). Likewise, a church is a church because of this confession of Christ, not because of their Confession.



This dichotomy is without foundation. All that the church confesses concerning Scripture, God, decrees, creation, providence, the fall, the covenants, the Mediator, the will, calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, faith, repentance, good works, perseverance, assurance, law, liberty, worship, vows, magistracy, marriage, church, communion, sacraments, church power, death, resurrection and judgment are all to be tested to see whether they proclaim "Jesus is the Lord" and therefore whether what is confessed is the voice of the Holy Spirit. There is no place for a nominalist view of confession. Jesus is Lord of all.


----------



## vagabond

I think you may have misunderstood. The question of the thread is whether written, formal Confessions control the churches, or whether the churches control Confessions.

Of course the confession of each true heart and church that "Jesus is Lord of all" DOES control the believer and the churches. But this is not the thread's issue.

If we don't make a distinction, an argument like "Christ built the church on Peter's confession, in the same way He builds a modern church on the Westminster Confession" actually could hold water. But that kind of argument doesn't make sense. It could be very reasonably argued that Christ builds the church on the *same confession that Peter made.* But to argue that Christ builds each church on its formally written Confession (which, as has been pointed out, is an incomplete manifestation of it's heart confession) doesn't work.

Please take time to critique, perhaps, some of the other points I made above. As I've said, I love the great written Confessions. But I don't believe that they _make _Christians and churches. They are incomplete manifestations of the heart confessions that make believers worldwide to be believers, and churches worldwide to be churches.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> We would not say a Christian controls his confession. Rather, we say he is a Christian because of his confession. Likewise, it is a church because of its confession. The "rock" on which Jesus Christ builds His church is not Peter, but his confession. To say the church produces or controls the confession is Roman Catholicism.
> 
> We have had a discussion about "semper reformanda" on a previous occasion. It ought not to be translated "always reforming;" it is this mistranslation which leads to a conceptual problem for many people.



But believing in the WCF is not the sign that one is a Christian. The WCF is much more specific than the "minimums" of being "in the faith."

One can fail to hold to the WCF and still be in a church or be a Christian, so the two things do not overlap totally. 


I fail to see why saying that a certain brand of Christians got together and created the WCF is Romanist.


----------



## MW

vagabond said:


> If we don't make a distinction, an argument like "Christ built the church on Peter's confession, in the same way He builds a modern church on the Westminster Confession" actually could hold water. But that kind of argument doesn't make sense. It could be very reasonably argued that Christ builds the church on the *same confession that Peter made.* But to argue that Christ builds each church on its formally written Confession (which, as has been pointed out, is an incomplete manifestation of it's heart confession) doesn't work.
> 
> Please take time to critique, perhaps, some of the other points I made above. As I've said, I love the great written Confessions. But I don't believe that they _make _Christians and churches. They are incomplete manifestations of the heart confessions that make believers worldwide to be believers, and churches worldwide to be churches.



I omit to critique your other points as they are really only alterior expressions of your nominalism.

Jesus Christ builds His church on the truth. The Westminster Confession is true. So, yes, Jesus Christ builds His church on the Westminster Confession of Faith. While we can acknowledge different _degrees_ of truth, we cannot accept different _kinds_. The only way to discover the Christian church is by its confession of the truth. There is not a spiritual entity called "the church" which exists apart from confession of Jesus Christ.

The catholic visible church, according to the Westminster Confession, is a society made up of those who *profess the true religion*. Particular churches are members thereof, more or less pure according to its confession. A less pure confession equals a less pure church. A less pure church can be acknowledged as an essentially true church, but its confession marks it out as a less pure church. The same applies to individual Christians.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> But believing in the WCF is not the sign that one is a Christian. The WCF is much more specific than the "minimums" of being "in the faith."
> 
> One can fail to hold to the WCF and still be in a church or be a Christian, so the two things do not overlap totally.
> 
> I fail to see why saying that a certain brand of Christians got together and created the WCF is Romanist.



The problem is with your idea that there are "brands" of Christianity, as if truth is of different kinds. There is *one* Christ, and therefore only one Christian faith and life. A confession is simply an acknowledgement of what one believes that Christian faith and life to be. Yes, one can still be a church or Christian and not hold to the WCF, but from the confessional perspective of the WCF such a church or Christian must be in error at the point at which the WCF is rejected, and therefore cannot be regarded as holding the Christian faith and life at that point.


----------



## vagabond

You basically support my point, that a believer/church is made by commitment to Truth, that is, Christ, and not to a written Confession.

But, a few things...

An attack of "nominalism" is meaningless. "Nominalism" can be described as a denial of universals. I was actually EMPHASIZING the universal in my posts, over the manifestations of it. Or, it can be described as a rejection of the notion that abstracts exist. Again, this doesn't apply. Perhaps if you would clarify what you mean on this point.

In addition, "a less pure confession" = "a less pure believer/church" doesn't work if we're talking about formal written Confessions, since churches don't achieve absolute subscription, so their Confessions are inaccurate judges of their true status. Maybe they should achieve absolute subscription...a topic not for this thread...but we speak of realities, not ideals.

However, if we speak of heart confession, the above equation works. Nominalism would reject the idea of this universal, or reject the notion of such an abstract, unwritten confession, perhaps...I'm not too versed in nominalist rhetoric.

Still confused on your label of "nominalist." Seems like an illogical thing to say. Please clarify.


----------



## vagabond

> Originally Posted by *armourbearer *
> The problem is with your idea that there are "brands" of Christianity, as if truth is of different kinds.



I don't believe that's what Pergamum meant, but you have failed to address the point of why the idea that a body of believers "produced" or "controls" its written Confession (driven, as we have seen, by God's sovereignly-directed heart conviction) is Romanist.

After repeated posts, this point remains undefended.


----------



## Herald

> *Ephesians 4:4-6 * 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.



If a person is saved, a child of God, they are of the Christian faith. That a subscriber to either the WCF of 1689 LBC is bound to be wrong on an issue does not mean they are not holding the Christian faith and life.


----------



## vagabond

Amen to that.


----------



## Barnpreacher

North Jersey Baptist said:


> *Ephesians 4:4-6 * 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a person is saved, a child of God, they are of the Christian faith. That a subscriber to either the WCF of 1689 LBC is bound to be wrong on an issue does not mean they are not holding the Christian faith and life.
Click to expand...


Didn't Matthew just mean they were not holding the Christian faith and life about that particular point?


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> Didn't Matthew just mean they were not holding the Christian faith and life about that particular point?



Yes: "such a church or Christian must be in error *at the point* at which the WCF is rejected, and therefore cannot be regarded as holding the Christian faith and life *at that point*."


----------



## MW

vagabond said:


> You basically support my point, that a believer/church is made by commitment to Truth, that is, Christ, and not to a written Confession.



I don't support this point because I reject nominalism. The church's confession IS the truth as it is in Jesus, so far as that church is concerned. One cannot have a name -- Jesus -- without a real life referent. The church explains the referent because the name itself is understood differently by different people.



vagabond said:


> In addition, "a less pure confession" = "a less pure believer/church" doesn't work if we're talking about formal written Confessions, since churches don't achieve absolute subscription, so their Confessions are inaccurate judges of their true status. Maybe they should achieve absolute subscription...a topic not for this thread...but we speak of realities, not ideals.



What you probably mean is, that in your experience churches don't achieve absolute subscription. In the Free Church tradition office-bearers subscribe the Westminster Confession as the confession of their faith.

One's experience should not prejudice his view of confession, but it is a scriptural view of confession which should judge one's experience. If the church has a confession which it does not truly believe then clearly what it subscribes to is not a confession. "We believe and therefore speak" is an apostolic maxim, not, We partially believe and therefore reservedly speak.


----------



## MW

vagabond said:


> I don't believe that's what Pergamum meant, but you have failed to address the point of why the idea that a body of believers "produced" or "controls" its written Confession (driven, as we have seen, by God's sovereignly-directed heart conviction) is Romanist.



If it is *driven* "by God's sovereignly-directed heart conviction" then the church has no control over its confession but is controlled by it. Thankyou for your choice of words; you have made the point brilliantly.


----------



## vagabond

It's getting late, so forgive me if any thoughts start to fog...



armourbearer said:


> I don't support this point because I reject nominalism.



Then I'm not sure we're communicating well. Nominalism, a rejection of universal abstracts (or some variation on that theme), would perhaps agree with you in rejecting the point.



> If the church has a confession which it does not truly believe then clearly what it subscribes to is not a confession.



*Bingo*. There's the "dichotomy" I was making. I hope you understand why it was made, now.


One point remains biggest; your statement that (paraphrase) "the idea that a church controls / produces its confession is Romanist" now makes a little more sense to me, considering what you just said. But it still remains a statement which In my humble opinion to the average board observer reads something like:

"The idea that a church controls the form of its written Confession is Romanist."

Which, I'd hope you agree, is most definitely not the case. In fact, it's the church's job to make sure its written Confession is a statement of what it believes! In this sense, the church controls its written Confession.


----------



## vagabond

I'm sorry, you made your last reply after I had already started writing mine.

Basically, I think you're making my point and you think I'm making yours. Though we don't fully agree, I don't think we disagree as much as our posts make it seem. Our communication misunderstandings over what I defined as "Confession" (a written document stating beliefs, which I believe to be the initial topic of this forum) and a "confession" (the actual heart beliefs of a church / believer; the ideal definition and, I believe, your topic) were the main problem. Forgive the confusion on my part. Yes, ideally they should be the same...in reality, they're often not, thus the need arose for the dichotomy.


Final comment: If the writing of the Confession is driven by God's direction, sure, that means that the Confession, in that sense, controls the writer, at that time. It doesn't mean that it controls all those who adopt the Confession as theirs...later, they may detect a distinction between their confession (belief) and Confession (document) and thus change the document. If such change is effected, the distinction is gone and life continues. If it's not, the distinction remains.

This capital/lowercase distinction I made isn't nominalist. I didn't make the distinction, I'm just discussing it. It's merely a way I discussed the *document *(which doesn't control!) and the actual *confession *behind it (which does control!). If they line up, fine, but in many churches they don't, and I believe the topic of the forum is, in a sense, whether the Confession controls the confession or the confession controls the Confession  That is, whether the document controls the belief, or the belief the document. Of course, the belief controls the document...in the terms I understood, that is, the church controls the Confession.

Am I making sense? I think a misunderstanding was at the root of our discussion :\ Good night.It's getting late here.

Cheers.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

North Jersey Baptist said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MODERATOR HAT ON*
> 
> While the confessions are not inspired and not on par with scripture, nevertheless they are a tested and tried summary of the faith. I'll allow this thread to continue but I want to go on record (just in case) that the confessions are not to be attacked, directly or obliquely. I am not saying that anyone in this thread is leaning in that direction but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
> 
> Carry on everyone.
> *MODERATOR HAT OFF*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean (for clarification)? I've noticed consistant dissent from both of the confessions (WCF and LBC 1689) here at the PuritanBoard. Both uphold a "Historicist" eschatology that very few people here agree with (this doesn't refer to me because I AM historicist). I'm just using that example to say it seems people have been given room to not completely agree with the confessions, so I assumed it was the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manley,
> 
> The confessional requirements for PB membership are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessional Requirements: *One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver.* This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manley, I think this is self explanatory. There are areas where the confessions are silent. They do not address each and every circumstance that a believer will encounter in their Christian walk. However, the confessions are _concordia cum veritate_, in harmony with truth. The burden rests on the one who questions the confessions to present their argument for consideration. It is for that reason that I posted that cautionary reminder.
Click to expand...


That's not really answering my question. The historicist view is clearly taught in the WCF and the LBC 1689 but not considered vital enough to bring warnings to those who don't adhere. My question is; what views taught in the confessions are treated with this level of seriousness and which aren't? I'm not asking to be rude but seeking to clarify the statements on the forum rules.

I agree that people shouldn't have to all subscribe to Historicism but that doesn't seem to fit with your warning. To be honest, I don't disagree with a single thing in the LBC 1689 but most in here seem to disagree with their confessions on at least the eschatological view (which is ok in my opinion).


----------



## MW

vagabond said:


> Then I'm not sure we're communicating well. Nominalism, a rejection of universal absolutes (or some variation on that theme), would agree with you in rejecting the point.



A nominalist is a person content with the name of Christianity without any regard to whether or not he is really one. A nominalist, in the context of this discussion, is one who is content with the use of words without examining what the words mean, what is their real life referent. To be a church or a Christian one must believe something. The confession is merely the statement of that belief. If it is something else, then it is not really a confession of faith.



vagabond said:


> Ok, perhaps this is another reason for miscommunication. The church is its believers, not just its elders. I would agree that if a church subscribes to a Confession (a written document of belief) it doesn't believe, that's not a confession.



The church in its catholic element is its members, but in its particular expression it is first a ministry. Hence the apostles, as men set apart to preach, were the foundation of the true church. Please consult also WCF 25:3, 4. It is the particular church as a ministry which confesses its faith through preaching the Word and administering sacraments.



vagabond said:


> Which, I'd hope you agree, is most definitely not the case. In fact, it's the church's job to make sure its written Confession is a statement of what it believes! In this sense, the church controls its written Confession.



The church certainly has a duty and is obliged in all honesty to ensure that what it confesses is in fact what it believes (which is sadly becoming less common today); but the fact is that the faith of the church is not revealed by flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven. Its confession of faith should be nothing more and nothing less than what "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" has revealed. The church ministerially expresses this, but it does not exercise any control over its content, because this is magisterially determined by the Head of the Church alone.


----------



## MW

vagabond said:


> Am I making sense? I think a misunderstanding was at the root of our discussion : Good night.It's getting late here.



You make good sense. The misunderstanding is not at the level of our discussion but of our experience. The dichotomy is a reality for some, perhaps even a majority, of reformed folk today, but it is not something which enters into my experience, nor one which I think is warranted by holy Scripture. I hope you have a good night's rest.


----------



## Herald

Barnpreacher said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ephesians 4:4-6 * 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a person is saved, a child of God, they are of the Christian faith. That a subscriber to either the WCF of 1689 LBC is bound to be wrong on an issue does not mean they are not holding the Christian faith and life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't Matthew just mean they were not holding the Christian faith and life about that particular point?
Click to expand...


Ryan, I don't share Matthew's view that someone who departs from the WCF on a point of doctrine is _not_ holding to the Christian faith at that point. For instance, as a credobaptist I would not be in agreement with the WCF. I am not a credobaptist today and not one tomorrow. Therefore, am I not holding to the Christian faith all the time I am a credobaptist? At worse I may not be holding to the TR position, but so what? There is only one faith and we are either of it or not.


----------



## Barnpreacher

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person is saved, a child of God, they are of the Christian faith. That a subscriber to either the WCF of 1689 LBC is bound to be wrong on an issue does not mean they are not holding the Christian faith and life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Matthew just mean they were not holding the Christian faith and life about that particular point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ryan, I don't share Matthew's view that someone who departs from the WCF on a point of doctrine is _not_ holding to the Christian faith at that point. For instance, as a credobaptist I would not be in agreement with the WCF. I am not a credobaptist today and not one tomorrow. Therefore, am I not holding to the Christian faith all the time I am a credobaptist? At worse I may not be holding to the TR position, but so what? There is only one faith and we are either of it or not.
Click to expand...


Hey Bill,

It took me a couple of times to understand what Matthew was saying in the post you are disputing. I'm not saying I completely understand it like he does, but I just didn't want you to read past what Matthew was writing and think that he was calling credo's non-believers. Do credo's hold to the Christian faith when it comes *to baptism*? According to the WCF the answer is no. That doesn't mean they are not believers. 

It makes sense if you think about it. If credo's and paedo's thought the other groups were holding to the Christian faith in the matter of baptism then there wouldn't be any of these baptism threads.


----------



## Herald

Barnpreacher said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Matthew just mean they were not holding the Christian faith and life about that particular point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan, I don't share Matthew's view that someone who departs from the WCF on a point of doctrine is _not_ holding to the Christian faith at that point. For instance, as a credobaptist I would not be in agreement with the WCF. I am not a credobaptist today and not one tomorrow. Therefore, am I not holding to the Christian faith all the time I am a credobaptist? At worse I may not be holding to the TR position, but so what? There is only one faith and we are either of it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Bill,
> 
> It took me a couple of times to understand what Matthew was saying in the post you are disputing. I'm not saying I completely understand it like he does, but I just didn't want you to read past what Matthew was writing and think that he was calling credo's non-believers. Do credo's hold to the Christian faith when it comes *to baptism*? According to the WCF the answer is no. That doesn't mean they are not believers.
> 
> It makes sense if you think about it. If credo's and paedo's thought the other groups were holding to the Christian faith in the matter of baptism then there wouldn't be any of these baptism threads.
Click to expand...


Ryan, I may be reading Matthew wrong (Matthew, this is directed at you also.) If Matthew is saying, "In the area in which you are in disagreement with the WCF, you are not holding the Christian faith", I could understand that comment. Upon first read it seemed that Matthew was saying that a person who disagrees with the WCF is not holding _the_ Christian faith. If that is the case then I stand corrected. It would be fitting terminology at that point because I consider those who are in disagreement with credo baptism to be in error, but not denying _the_ faith that was once delivered.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Bill,

I'm pretty sure that's what Matthew is saying. See post #34. I was like you the first time I read his post. But then I read it a couple of more times and it made sense to me.

And I certainly wasn't trying to correct you, brother. I just wanted to try and clarify what I thought Matthew was saying for sake of thread unity. That's the danger in writing things to people as opposed to talking to them. A lot of time what we are trying to say gets misunderstood when we type it.


----------



## Herald

Ryan, I'm not beyond correction. Trust me. If I'm wrong, correct me. Please!


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Barnpreacher said:


> Bill,
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's what Matthew is saying. See post #34. I was like you the first time I read his post. But then I read it a couple of more times and it made sense to me.
> 
> And I certainly wasn't trying to correct you, brother. I just wanted to try and clarify what I thought Matthew was saying for sake of thread unity. That's the danger in writing things to people as opposed to talking to them. A lot of time what we are trying to say gets misunderstood when we type it.



There's lots of room for misunderstanding! Forums like these show us how important non-verbal communication is in our day to day conversations. People are far more often unintentionally offended in forums then in face to face conversation.


----------



## Pergamum

WOw, I go away for a pig roast and come back and POW!!! About 50 new posts and a lot of heat and/or light.


----------



## py3ak

Was the pig roast good?


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> Was the pig roast good?



Not real clean (kicked in the ground) served on the grass..and REALLY fatty. Had 100 pig-greasy hands grabbing for my son too trying to pinch his white cheeks. YUCK. It was enjoyable but not enjoyable like a US Barbecue. My son climbed trees all day with local kids and I met some more gov't officials who made more promises of help in my area.

We got a large hunk of meat in my fridge now (after washing the grass and fur off of it). I managed to get some fresh bacon from the coast too and I will cook both together tomorrow for Perin, the local woman that lives with my wife and I (show her how Americans eat pig.... mix it together and add salt and black pepper).


----------



## py3ak

Maybe in time you'll come to think of the fur and grass as seasoning.


----------



## Pergamum

I've already come to think of ants as the seasoning....fur is the next level I guess.

Stage one: Look at ants in disgust, and throw away your food
Stage two: Look at ants, brush them off and eat your food,
Stage three: Eat the ants.

Sifting flour and sugar was a skill that seminary did not prepare me for.


----------



## py3ak

If it can be digested, it's food right? (That coming from the pickiest eater on the PB)


----------



## Pergamum

Mmmmmm....just because it CAN be digested doesn't mean that it SHOULD be!


----------



## py3ak

We need a Regulative Principle of Consumption.


----------



## ManleyBeasley




----------



## Pergamum

Rpc


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

CharlieJ said:


> vagabond said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, in his hope for a new confession, Frame isn't saying the old ones are bad; he merely points out that there are more issues that should be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to examine what is in the confessions and what isn't. In an age that seems to tend toward reducing confessional content, it makes more sense to add to it, since there are more issues today than back in the 17th century.
> 
> 
> 
> Areas I'd like to see addressed in the Confession:
> 
> Relationship of Confessional churches to those of other beliefs.
> 
> Statement on the Lordship Controversy (of course, there are already chapters on Saving Faith and Repentance Unto Life, but I think it might be possible to amend or add to them in such a way that they speak clearly to the problems created by Chafer/Ryrie/Hodges/Wilkin.)
> 
> Family and gender issues
> 
> Evangelism and Missions
Click to expand...


Thanks, Charlie. Those are some of the very same suggestions I made on this board under the thread "The Danger of Reformed Confessionalism," which was actually started in response to a two-part post I submitted on RBS Tabletalk: The Weblog of Reformed Baptist Seminary. By the way, I'm not far away. Live in Greenville, and minister in Easley. Thanks again for your post.


----------



## Scott1

> it makes more sense to add to it, since there are more issues today than back in the 17th century.



Actually, there were some popular heresy's and doctrinal error then that the Westminster Divines were very carefully writing to avoid that are not common in this generation so I'm not sure this is the case.

As a layman, I take comfort in the fact that most sophisticated theological arguments (as in other spheres) boil down to very simple and basic matters. God has gifted people to help make the complex understandable to protect His church in each generation. 

As Ecclesiastes 1:9:


> The thing that hath been, it is _that_ which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new _thing_ under the sun.



Most are recycled, repackaged error that has been dealt with in the past.

Confessions are not intended to cover every doctrine and they are not intended to bind men's consciences except in most essential detail.

I think 350 years of surviving the testing from some of the greatest teachers in Christendom and some of her most ardent antagonists have born out the that the Confessions are reliable and trustworth summaries of the doctrine contained in Scripture. 

They need to always be amendable, but only changed, added to, or revised only with the greatest of deliberation.

Don't forget, when the PCUSA began adopting modernism, the denomination began by adding (in their case Arminianism, in direct contradiction to the Standards) to the Confession. Study this historical example and see how it was done under pretense of being for the Gospel, by including the nonbiblical addition of a chapter on the Holy Spirit who, by the changes was represented as responding to man's choice. This meant moving away from limited atonement and toward Arminianism. The revised document became contradictory and a compromise document that descended into decentralized private interpretation and lost much of its meaning and authority. 

About every Reformed denomination went back to the original formulations because they are trustworthy and faithful to Scripture, demonstrably so.


----------



## Herald

ManleyBeasley said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean (for clarification)? I've noticed consistant dissent from both of the confessions (WCF and LBC 1689) here at the PuritanBoard. Both uphold a "Historicist" eschatology that very few people here agree with (this doesn't refer to me because I AM historicist). I'm just using that example to say it seems people have been given room to not completely agree with the confessions, so I assumed it was the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manley,
> 
> The confessional requirements for PB membership are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessional Requirements: *One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver.* This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manley, I think this is self explanatory. There are areas where the confessions are silent. They do not address each and every circumstance that a believer will encounter in their Christian walk. However, the confessions are _concordia cum veritate_, in harmony with truth. The burden rests on the one who questions the confessions to present their argument for consideration. It is for that reason that I posted that cautionary reminder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really answering my question. The historicist view is clearly taught in the WCF and the LBC 1689 but not considered vital enough to bring warnings to those who don't adhere. My question is; what views taught in the confessions are treated with this level of seriousness and which aren't? I'm not asking to be rude but seeking to clarify the statements on the forum rules.
> 
> I agree that people shouldn't have to all subscribe to Historicism but that doesn't seem to fit with your warning. To be honest, I don't disagree with a single thing in the LBC 1689 but most in here seem to disagree with their confessions on at least the eschatological view (which is ok in my opinion).
Click to expand...


Manley,

I can't answer for each and every moderator, admins or the owners of the board. I do know that we have allowed a certain degree of latitude in discussions that are not lockstep with the confessions. It's not a black or white decision on whether a person is contra-confessional. The attitude of the person, the areas in which they question the confessions and their response to correction would be determinative as to our response. There are some matters such as the NPP or the FV which there is absolutely no tolerance for. If PB member has a general disdain for the confessions that will be opposed quickly and decisively. 

I hope this explanation helps.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

*On Word Etymology-"reformed"*

I would like to start out by saying that the Confessions (as stated in prior posts) were and are an outline of the Churches' beliefs, and is considered a guide for the congregations in learning sound Scriptural doctrine. The genius of the WCF Larger and Shorter is amazing to me (the originals that is). One could spend quite a lot of time with their Bible(s) and the Confessions alone for their private learning...in fact, going through them as a regular practice over the course of one's life would be a good idea.

I see, where one would question whether the Confessions become more important than Scripture, and I concur with the notion that in many cases this is just so. When I discuss doctrine, I almost never refer to anything outside of Scripture, though the place I first learned of a particular doctrine may not have been from a Bible reading, but from studying another source. It may have been the Institutes, or perhaps something by John Owen, but, I don't mention it as such, in every or most instances. With that, I could question the idea of whether the same question(s) could not be infered toward Reformed writers/ scholars. Perhaps another "thread"?

My other focus was on the quote of "the Church reformed and always reforming". There is the matter of WHAT the statement is refering to by the choice of words. Like "Church". What is meant by the word? or in the case of "reformed"...the word according to it's etymology in the time of the reformers carried the meaning "to bring (a person) out of an evil course of life". With that in mind, could it not simply mean that being the Church considered it's self "reformed AND always reforming" to mean it had already acknowledged it's condition as BEING reformed, and yet the purpose for it was to "bring (a persion) out of an evil course of life"? Where members are always vigilant to keep a watchful eye against all manner of evil? Whether of doctrinal heresy from "wolves in sheeps clothing", understanding the deceptive ways of Rome, as well as personal reform from evil ways...and the reforming of sinful ways of the others in the same congregation?

I don't believe it meant that they were constantly reforming their Standards as much as it was a mindset against the heresies of the day, that we frequently see and hear today. It is a practice of one's BEING reformed. Kind of like, BEING a Christian. Perhaps the idea came from the idea that we are Justified, and the resulting effectual work of the Spirit making one born again, (reformed?) would result in an effectual work of Sanctification (reforming?) making one not only a Christian once but for all time? "I am crucified with Christ, never the less I live, yet not I but it is Christ that liveth in me" and other verses such as "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound"? How can we who are dead to sin live any longer therein", and "make thine election sure", all come to mind, as many others are as I type. Like as Paul was chief of sinners and did not count himself as having already attained...etc., etc.

Well, I'm sure you get the gist of it. Hope this adds a bit of "beef jerky" to your spiritual diet for the day


----------

