GulfCoast Presbyterian
Puritan Board Senior
Who is "the leading proponent?"
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
A new Reformed Confession
- Thread starter Herald
- Start date
- Status
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Bill,
I was being "cute" with saying the LBCF was the WCF, "just a little more 'water filled'" comment. The LBCF is essentially the WCF with a nod to a couple of Baptist distinctives. Cf. XXIX.4: "4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."
I would be a hearty supporter of making inerrancy explicit rather than implicit. However, by the time someone gets around to putting it in print, will there be enough folks around who are willing to subscribe to it? That puppy is beginning to look like an endangered species in some quarters. How broadly would you cast the net of inerrancy? Does it include Enns? Longman? The various doubters of historical Adam? The "evangelical" proponents of the NPP? The deniers of imputation?
As usual, Chris nailed it with his comment:
I was being "cute" with saying the LBCF was the WCF, "just a little more 'water filled'" comment. The LBCF is essentially the WCF with a nod to a couple of Baptist distinctives. Cf. XXIX.4: "4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."
I would be a hearty supporter of making inerrancy explicit rather than implicit. However, by the time someone gets around to putting it in print, will there be enough folks around who are willing to subscribe to it? That puppy is beginning to look like an endangered species in some quarters. How broadly would you cast the net of inerrancy? Does it include Enns? Longman? The various doubters of historical Adam? The "evangelical" proponents of the NPP? The deniers of imputation?
As usual, Chris nailed it with his comment:
I am often out of touch with what is going on in the American Church, but what consensus is there? As far as I know, ARBCA is the only consensus among Baptist churches. Does the Founders group within the SBC have a consensus? Is there a Baptist Seminary or other Baptist associations that subscribe fully to the LBC? I would like to know because it gets pretty lonely being an LBC guy.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Whether post-, historic pre-, or a-millennialist in eschatology, I like to think that all of the number of God's elect would agree that among THEM there will remain a consensus that the Truth will always be accepted and endorsed. If, in God's loving providence, there proceeds a better confession than those He has already provided, then I am confident that His people will subscribe to it, but only after very thorough 'Berean' vetting of same. As for me and my family, we fail to see the need for such improvement.
Dennis,
That is my concern. What fish get caught in that net? Some may have impeccable intentions, but things can easily get out of hand.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Goodcheer68
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree. Trying to update and keep things relevant will eventually take you down a road that never ends. It also makes it easier to begin to change the confessions to something that are completely different from what they first started out as.
I agree. There are probably better ways to use time and money than a get together of the best RB minds for a 5 or 6 year meeting to make updates to an already excellent Baptist confession that almost no one cares about.
If Calvy-Baptists pooled their energies, I agree, something like this would be a bigger priority than making a new confession: The Radical.net Blog » Blog Archive » Cross: A New Student Missions Conference
Unoriginalname
Puritan Board Junior
Probably the only legitimate need for a new reformed confession would come from a non Western Church where the cultural context would be so different from the world of the WCF, or Three Forms that it would merit a new confession, one dealing with paganism, charismatics and other heresies that infect that culture.
Chris, this is an excellent point. Who is to say that someday we may see a Kampala Confession of Faith?
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Looks interesting. My 17 year old son would love it.
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
The Founders consensus is the Abstract of Principles (see Founders Ministries | About Us). However, suppose one decides to list his local congregation as Founders-friendly. Though the Founders webpage presents a brief list of historical Baptist Calvinistic confessions (with the idea that your congregation must subscribe to one of them and make such subscription public in your listing there), in practice congregations are listed there which merely adhere to the BFM 2000 (a fine document, though not on the list!) or label themselves as having no confession of faith. So the consensus isn't there as much as we'd like for it to be.
I write this as one who admires the aims and work of the Founders, and also one whose congregation adheres to the BFM 2000 at present - so I hope this doesn't come across as casting stones! I am thoroughly happy with the 2LBCF and the Abstract of Principles as they are.
Last edited:
Foolish Gospel Preacher
Puritan Board Freshman
Not to sound pessimistic, and not to remain stubbornly rooted in historical forms for the mere sake of tradition (though always for the sake of orthodoxy and clarity!), I have to wonder just whom it would help, since confessions are only as good as the men who hold them. I mean to say, men have always found a way to profess adherence to a creed but redefine it for themselves personally, thus orthodox statements continue to be the "standard" for wayward institutions. The same would be true of anything new. Men can always turn it into a rubber nose if they wish. So it seems to me that what is out there already is more than sufficient. What we need is more orthodox men, not more orthodox standards.
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
Josh, whether it's bacon or cats, your posts always make me smile! Ha ha!
And I agree with your feline friend.
And I agree with your feline friend.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think it should be horses for course's Confessions should come from the heart & mind of those who profess such, there's always been alot of people who don't completely subsribe to every jot & tittle of the various parts
of our Reformed Confessions who hold mental reservations as such, these folk who are orthodox and differ as such on minor points should have their own modifications done to the WCF, just as the Congregationalist's ,the
Baptist's & U.S. Presso's have done in the past with their respective beliefs of Baptism,Church & Civil Government, just for the purpose of clarity,transparency & Honesty.What I'm advocating here as such is for Variation
within kind, the Creeds are Great ,Learned & Wise though I think there is room for those other little differences that Ministers have like Infra/Supra, Augustinian Traducianism/Federal Headship,Remarriage after divorce in
some cases(adultery)/no remarriage,A-mill/Post-mill etc to be Inserted & the Confessions being modified for that Particular/Individual Congregation. I'm arguing for those orthodox differences that already exist within our
Churches so that these Individual Congregations/Ministers could be more sincer, honest & forthwrite in what they specifically believe,for instance you could have two Pressy Churches in individual towns that belong
to the same Local Presbytery yet each use slightly modified Confessions,& yet they still maintain Fellowship showing each other Christian Love,Charity & Forbearance,Liberty in regards to these minor differences.
What I'm not advocating is the allowance of Heresy such as on the Trinity, Justification,Romanism,Universalism & others etc,etc,etc.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes & No I think those folk who can honestly subscribe to the confessions should stick with them & their Congregations,there is room for variation within kind so to speak as Ive posted below &
even what if there are people for example,who've for instance have accepted Edward Fudges views on Conditional Immortality,Mortalism,Soul Sleep & Destructionism(Annihilation) yet still believe
in The Trinity,The Sovereignty of God in Salvation,His Decrees,Covenant Theology,Satisfaction of Christ,Justification, Regulative Principle Worship,Presbyterian Church Government A-Mill & other
such tenants of Orthodox Reformed Doctrine, couldn't they modify the Westminster Confession to mesh it with their Belief in Conditionalism Immortality just as the Congregationalists & Baptists
have done with their respective views of Baptism & Church Government,though they would need to form new churches which subsribe to these views just as the others have done, as an example,&
have still been allowed to subscribe to this forum.
It was mentioned in another thread that the same conditions that existed in the 17th Century do not exist today. Are we to expect that a new Reformed confession would not mirror the egalitarian Christianity of today, even within the Reformed community?
Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3
Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3
JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
The problem with your statement is that it can also be used against modern Bible versions. If we refuse to affirm that the language of the confessions should be updated because of a lack of doctrinal stricture by those within the Reformed community today, then we must hold to the same position regarding modern Bible versions. "Are we to expect that a new Reformed Bible Translation would not mirror the egalitarian Christianity of today, even within the Reformed community?" An argument against one is an argument against both.
If we wish to keep the ever changing Critical Text and its translations, then the confessions should be changed to reflect the doctrine of the current Reformed community. WCF/2LBCF 1.8 should be changed to reflect the current practice of modern textual criticism. We now "know" that the texts of scripture were not in fact kept pure in all ages, but needed the modern practice of textual criticism to determine for us the true text of scripture. Our confessions should reflect this change regarding scripture prevalent in the many of Reformed churches. WCF/2LBCF 4.1 should be changed to reflect our current understanding of science, a shifting sand if ever there was one, and show that 6 days may not be literal days but could be long ages of time. And we should change the Confessions' teaching on the civil magistrate to reflect the current R2K doctrine. I'm sure other changes could be found as well. Or we could abandon the atheism implicit in modern textual criticism and so-called science in favor of Reformation Bibles and what the Bible plainly teaches about Creation. And we could abandon R2K in favor of the Reformed teachings about the Civil Magistrate and its implications for us within our communities.
Language is not the issue, content is. If the agenda of some of those who want a new confession(s) was simply to update the language from 16th Century language to 21st Century language, that is one debate. Changing content is something different altogether.
Most modern Bible versions have sought to better render the English language, not to change content. Obviously this does not apply to paraphrase translations, but to serious translations like the NKJV, NASB, and ESV.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
1) Language is the issue, since the content of doctrine is expressed in language. "Propitiation" is completely different than "atoning sacrifice". Examples could be multiplied ad nauseam of legitimate poor word choices in modern versions. Assume we "update" the language of the current confessions. Modern English is less precise than the English of the Confessions and the end result of such an "update" will be less than the original.
2) Ignoring for now the translations, the Critical Greek text does change content from the Greek text used by the Reformers. Modern textual critics openly admit that. They also openly admit that these changes effect Bible doctrine. However, the majority if not all of those changes reflected in the critical text were known by the Reformers and the Reformers outright rejected them as spurious. We should do the same.
Shouldn't the confessions used by Reformed churches that hold to modern textual criticism and its products change their confession to more accurately express their doctrine of Scripture? And shouldn't those Reformed churches that deny 6-day creation change their confession to reflect their views? The same goes for R2K churches, New Calvinism, and all the other Reformed Churches that no longer hold to the original meaning of Reformation Confessions.
littlepeople
Puritan Board Freshman
I would be happy to see the church come together to make a new translation, but I think even that would be asking too much.
Speaking as a Reformed Baptist, there is no consensus among Reformed Baptists on textual criticism. There is consensus on our confession. I suppose a group of Reformed Baptist pastors and theologians may do just as you have suggested - draft a confession to reflect the modern use of language. It will lead to polarization, not unity. I doubt whether there will be enough critical mass among Reformed Baptists to garner support for a new confession that will have broad appeal.
As unlikely as I think it is, if broad support for a new confession among Reformed Baptists develops, I will certainly join the debate. The last thing I will want to see happen is a fracture among Reformed Baptists on this very crucial area. I would rather throw a wrench into the works through vigorous debate than see confessed biblical truth compromised.
I suppose there is good that can come from this debate. The Reformed Baptist movement is growing. With that growth comes opportunity and danger. The opportunity is for increased confessionalism among Baptists. The danger is a form of confessionalism that reflects modern egalitarianism. It must be opposed.
I suppose there is good that can come from this debate. The Reformed Baptist movement is growing. With that growth comes opportunity and danger. The opportunity is for increased confessionalism among Baptists. The danger is a form of confessionalism that reflects modern egalitarianism. It must be opposed.
JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
There is no consensus on the confession by Reformed Baptists and our churches. Reformed Baptist churches who hold to modern textual criticism either implicitly or explicitly do not hold to chapter 1 of the 2LBCF. The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of Scripture found in the Reformed Confessions. The two can never be reconciled. Reformed Baptist churches who hold to some form of evolutionism do not hold to chapter 4 of the confession. Reformed Baptist churches who hold R2K, New Calvinist, New Covenant Theology, or other such views do not hold to the 2LBCF. Unless all Reformed Baptist churches reject these various philosophies, then there is no consensus and never can be consensus on our confession.
To have consensus requires agreement on the meaning of the confession as it was written in toto. I cannot say I affirm the 2LBCF while at the same time taking exception with its doctrine of scripture, doctrine of creation, doctrine of justification, doctrine of civil magistrates, etc. It is similar to FV'ers claiming to hold to the WCF, when in fact through their redefinition of terms they do not hold to it. It would be better for the FV'ers, Critical Text supporters, non-6-dayers, R2K, New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology advocates, etc. to each have their own confessions that accurately reflect their doctrinal peculiarities than for them to claim they hold to that which they do not. The Reformed Confessions as written and intended do not support any of these modern encrustations unless we wish to read back into them our modern views. But in doing that we make the language of the confessions meaningless.
Chris, perhaps I do not interact with the particular Reformed Baptist churches you are mentioning (not by name, but apparently by what they take exception to). About the only exception I have run into among like-minded churches is the Pope being the Antichrist. Baptists being Baptists, any church can claim the title "Reformed Baptist." I should have qualified my statement. The churches I have knowledge of are either ARBCA affiliated or strong 1689 churches. Our church is unaffiliated. The Pope being the Antichrist is the only part of the confession that is debated between our elders. It is precisely because the 1689 LBCF has proven to be an accurate summation of biblical doctrine and practice that our church adopted it over two years ago. Our elders are divided on TR vs. CT, but it has not caused a problem.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
This seems to me to be a severe charge against many good brethren with whom I fellowship and to whom I grant that they in sincerity and in accordance with their understanding do indeed wholeheartedly embrace Chapter One of our Confession. They, on their part and I, on my part believe that each of us (notwithstanding textual critical disagreements) hold vigorously to 1:8 -
This is a strong assertion and is not conceded by all. It requires no small debate and demonstration. I personally am thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the Byzantine Text Form and am persuaded that the rise of critical texts in the past two centuries to be a blunder of great magnitude. However, that good brethren have given credence to the theory does not necessarily impugn their integrity.
JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
My point was that they do not take exception to those parts of the 2LBCF with which they disagree. Whether the disagreement is explicitly taught from the pulpit or implicitly held through their affirmation of variations on evolutionism, in using critical text translations, New Calvinism, etc., they are in disagreement with the confession. Those areas of disagreement should be highlighted.
The division amongst your elders over CT & TR should cause problems. The underlying philosophy of both schools are diametrically opposed. Since they are mutually exclusive, only one of those philosophies can be in line with the 2LBCF's teaching on scripture.
- Status
