Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My apology to any on the Board who felt that I was insulting Reformed theology in any way, as I thought reading the article, the author was expressing the view that within certain churches, the 1689 Confession by itself should not be used to be the church statement of beliefs and practices, as in some even Reformed Baptists churches, they would tend to fold to a different statement for purpose of the minimum a member needs to adhere to when in fellowship with that church.Moderator note to ALL:
Please refrain from styling thread titles as click bait that forces the reader to click the title to understand what is to follow.
The title should be descriptive enough for a reader to gather some substance about what is to follow. Moreover, what is to follow should not be a grammatical continuation of the title of the thread. The title is the title, not an introductory clause to follow in a post.
Why?
Say someone quotes your post above a few pages into the discussion. All that would appear would be a link. No context. No explanation. Now the reader must trudge backwards in the thread to determine why a post with only a link has been made.
Instead, your post should have at least started with the title you used for the thread in question. It would have helped to also offer up some comments about what the reader may expect to find at the link in question.
End Moderator Note to All
Moderator Note to David:
Did you read the content at this link, David?
Did you read the concluding remarks made?
"The SLC, then, is a tremendous statement of historic Reformed (and, I think, biblical) doctrine. I recommend it highly as a guide for biblical doctrine. However, it was historically-conditioned in the seventeenth century and it contains too rigid a view of certain doctrines. For these reasons it should not be used as a local congregation’s statement of faith."The author of this linked content is also anti-Sabbatarian.
Why would you post such a link given the obvious contra-confessional nature of this person? I cannot divine your reasons for doing so as you offered up no explanations. I am forced to conclude you are advocating non-confessionalism, you are spamming the thread, etc.
You offer up no hesitancy for linking to this content, which, as a minimum would be expected given its strident anti-Reformed stance. Any other moderator who does not know you personally would be well within their rights to just give you an extended vacation from our site.
That said, I am not inclined to do so, because I have known you for many years and believe you only meant to innocently make this post to foster discussion. (You are not out of the woods as another moderator may feel some action is needed.)
Nevertheless, I am going to publicly admonish you to refrain from such actions moving forward. If you find something contentious on the internet and want to discuss it, firstly consider the reasons why the matter is post worthy. Is it merely to stir the pot? Is it bait to foster "board wars" when the author is not even present to defend himself? Do you have some edifying comments about the content to be posted that will increase the successes of our walk of faith?
Secondly, be courteous to the reader and provide some of your own commentary about a link you want others to read such that the reader may make an informed decision to go further. Do not just ask for opinions while failing to offer your own beforehand. Your tentativeness in matters of doctrine is well-known here. Continued tossing out some questions, then sitting back to see what comes afterwards before weighing in just will not do.
We do not have time to play twenty-questions with every topic. God has given each of us a limited number of resources, in particular—time, money, talents, and energy. And we are commanded to be good stewards of each (cf. Ephesians 5:15; Ecclesiastes 11:9; Mark 12:30). So be a good steward of your gifts and time—not everyone deserves it (especially the author of the linked content above) and you are not obligated to give it unworthily, Romans 12:6-8, Ephesians 5:15-17; Psalm 90:12; Isaiah 49:4.
End Moderator Note to David
I took it that he was holding to Reformed/Calvinistic theology views, but did not regard the 1689 Confession as being mandatory and used only for a church statement of doctrines.I will say the article didn't seem to be focusing on advancing non-confessional opinions. For example, out of the three doctrinal points he thinks are too rigid, one he explicitly says he holds to (just doesn't think it should be in a congregation's statement of faith) and the other you can't ascertain solely from the article, even if his position is implied.
I think that this issue would be much more a discussion in a reformed Baptist church, as Baptists by definition have that dual thread of being a confessing group, but also holding to individual beliefs and doctrines that can be held. That also might be why he wrote as he did, as some will hold to the 1689, some to 1833, and others to the Baptist statement of faith and doctrines from I believe 1925/1963/2000.The problem I see is that he says...
"In the second place, churches must decide on the purpose of a local congregation’s statement of faith."
And again...
"Churches must decide how tightly to draw their theological boundaries..."
But, he then concludes...
"For these reasons it should not be used as a local congregation’s statement of faith."
I can understand where he is coming from given his beliefs, but I would rather he said something like. "I think local churches should carefully consider whether the LBC is an appropriate confession for particular circumstances."
Personally, I think the strength of the Reformed confessions (which he largely ignores) outweighs his concerns.
Thanks for the link, as he made valid points that would in large measure refute what the OP author was contending for.It should be noted that Pastor Sam Waldron wrote a rebuttal to this article at the time which was subsequently published by 9 Marks as well. I think most of us will agree with his assessment of the article.
https://www.9marks.org/article/why-and-how-your-church-should-hold-1689-confession/
by definition have that dual thread of being a confessing group, but also holding to individual beliefs and doctrines that can be held.
And very few care.The word 'Reformed' means so many things today that it basically means nothing at all.
I don't agree. I think the 1689 LBC is fine as a doctrinal statement. It would not hurt for a local church to add position papers on culturally relevant topics like same-sex marriage, but the doctrinal statements in the 1689 LBC are sound and are not bound to specific time periods.
Indeed. He seems to give a sort of 'postmodern' view of confessions whether or not he sees that's how his presuppositions come across.The problem I see is that he says...
"In the second place, churches must decide on the purpose of a local congregation’s statement of faith."
And again...
"Churches must decide how tightly to draw their theological boundaries..."
But, he then concludes...
"For these reasons it should not be used as a local congregation’s statement of faith."
I can understand where he is coming from given his beliefs, but I would rather he said something like. "I think local churches should carefully consider whether the LBC is an appropriate confession for particular circumstances."
Personally, I think the strength of the Reformed confessions (which he largely ignores) outweighs his concerns.
And the WCF is not as specific?The problem with this is that it will either cause the church to create or adopt too narrow of a confession, thus jeopardizing the purity of the church; or the church uses a confession, such as the 1689 LBC, that is so specific that it becomes nearly impossible for the average lay person to fully understand let alone confidentially vow to uphold its contents.
And the WCF is not as specific?
^^ Well, seriously--the LBCF is neither long nor difficult. Our elders are always available to answer questions regarding it by applicants for membership, and quite often a membership transfer does take a year. But what's wrong with a year? It gives the elders time to examine the life and witness of the applicant, and bring up any issues they might have to sort out. One of the benefits of a rigorous application process is that discipline and excommunications are reduced, since the insincere and uncommitted are weeded out.
Saying that only the elders need know the confession well is like saying only elders need to know the Bible. But all christians should know their Bibles, and to expect them to do so is not burdensome. Likewise the confession, being a sort of systematic theology is not a bad thing to expect members to know.
In my former church, it was not necessary for a prospective member to have to agree with the 1689 LBC in toto. They had to agree to be taught from the 1689 perspective, and that the 1689 LBC could be used to settle any doctrinal disputes. Basically, they had to be teachable. I think that is the case with more than a few confessional Baptist churches. I caution about saying "usually is the case". You really can't make a wholesale statement like that unless you have data to back it up.The WCF is very specific. My point is that, as is usually the case with congregationalism, members have to "subscribe" to the confession in order to become a member.
In my former church, it was not necessary for a prospective member to have to agree with the 1689 LBC in toto. They had to agree to be taught from the 1689 perspective, and that the 1689 LBC could be used to settle any doctrinal disputes. Basically, they had to be teachable. I think that is the case with more than a few confessional Baptist churches. I caution about saying "usually is the case". You really can't make a wholesale statement like that unless you have data to back it up.
The distinctive Baptist views regarding this would allow for an individual to be onder a Confession, or the entire church, but also to have it that one can hold to a statement of beliefs as sufficient to being a Confession of faith.To be accurate, one is either confessional (entirely) or they are not. This is the problem in this age. People take membership and say that they agree with said confession and they don't. Church leadership are more concerned with increasing the membership role than the contents that they vowed to. For example, I have no issue with the WCF and subscribe to it fully.
Actually, more like more inclusiveKen,
Yep; the term has been hijacked.
There is also the interesting situation like currently I am in, in that that my local Baptist church there are some of us that are now reformed in our theology, but also those holding to Calvinism and others holding to more of a free will salvation viewpoint. Being Christians Baptists, we all can and have living together under the one same rook now.In my former church, it was not necessary for a prospective member to have to agree with the 1689 LBC in toto. They had to agree to be taught from the 1689 perspective, and that the 1689 LBC could be used to settle any doctrinal disputes. Basically, they had to be teachable. I think that is the case with more than a few confessional Baptist churches. I caution about saying "usually is the case". You really can't make a wholesale statement like that unless you have data to back it up.