A new Reformed Confession

[Herald]

A well known figure among Reformed Baptists is on record as supporting a new Reformed confession. As a confessional Baptist I immediately recoil in response to this suggestion. My first, and I believe most pertinent question is, in which points do our current confessions fail or come short? I understand Baptists and Presbyterians will disagree on some aspects of ecclesiology and baptism. Those differences aside, is it necessary to draft a new confession? Is just another attempt at contextualization gone too far?

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I say these folks should go ahead and make a new confession so everyone knows what they actually will swear they believe; but as far as a replacement to those which some of us think are fine, forget-about-it.

 

[JP Wallace]

I don't see any need. The language is not convulted but careful, nor is it even that antiquated. The BCF could probably add in WCF's chapter on marriage and divorce - but in essence all the things that are supposedly missing are not missing at all.

 

[Herald]

I wonder whether one motivation for a new confession is to admit and omit certain doctrines/practices.

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3

 

[Jack K]

Very few Baptist churches these days are confessional at all. For example, my Baptist church is unlikely to ever embrace the LBC. But it might consider something Reformed and Baptist that gives more latitude than the LBC while still confessing far more that our current one-page faith statement does. So for my church, that would be an improvement. Even if it didn't codify everything we might like, it would still codify several important things that need to be codified.

Would it dilute things for others? I don't know. But if it gets more churches to become more confessional—even if not embracing as complete a confession as we might like—perhaps it isn't something to reject out of hand.

 

[Tripel]

I don't see a problem with seeking a new confession. The fact that the person sees the value of a confession is a good thing. The WCF and LBC are really good, but they are not perfect. I see no reason why a confession equally as good or better couldn't be written today.

 

[Herald]

I think the burden of proof for a new confession rests solely on those who would propose one. Starting with the two most subscribed to confessions on this board; where are they lacking? What is it about their over 300 years of staying power that makes them in need of an overhaul?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Bill The Baptist]

A lot of reformed Baptists I have spoken with seem to take exception with the sabbatarianism that is contained in the LBC. Other than that, they may just desire something in simpler language since no one speaks English anymore

 

[Rich Koster]

A lot of reformed Baptists I have spoken with seem to take exception with the sabbatarianism that is contained in the LBC. Other than that, they may just desire something in simpler language since no one speaks English anymore

There are 1689LBCs with updated language available.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Any new Confession would certainly be less precise in any number of areas than the old Confessions. That much is sure.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Starting with the two most subscribed to confessions on this board; where are they lacking?

Just speaking hypothetically about what sections could be changed to deal with problems that have arisen since the Westminster Assembly:
(I apologize if my comment reads more like a laundry list)

Sections relating to the Catholic church could be redone to deal with the post Vatican II RC, sections could also be included about the EO and LDS potentially since they were not really issues at the time the confessions were written.
WSC 1:8 could be expanded to deal with issues such as textual variation.
WSC 7:2 could be expanded or defended more given the recent challenges to the concept of the Covenant of Works


Of course the whole problem with writing a new confession is who is going to write it and who is going to confess it. There is much less ecclesiastical unity now then there was in the times when the earlier confessions were written so I fail to see the wisdom of spending time and energy to write a new confession for less people to proclaim.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Don't forget; any new confession is a post establishment confession (and since Presbyterians have only tinkered on the fringe for 350 years). Westminster was backed by the state and it still took them 7 years. And don't get me started on the number of extraordinary men there (how many of our leading lights rank extraordinary?). The church is divided; even the Reformed "pond". And the dynamics would be completely different depending on venue (Reformed; Presbyterian; Baptist). A new confession at this time that will get "standing" of any significance is a fantasy; it just isn't going to happen right now.

Of course the whole problem with writing a new confession is who is going to write it and who is going to confess it. There is much less ecclesiastical unity now then there was in the times when the earlier confessions were written so I fail to see the wisdom of spending time and energy to write a new confession for less people to proclaim.

 

[rbcbob]

I have weighed in on this a number of times. A "new confession" whether in totality or as a revision of the Standards held by virtually everyone on this board is by logic and definition "not the existing and accepted Standard" but rather something other than said Standard. Just as surely as the owners of PB would have to declare that new thing acceptable for membership, so too would countless Churches have to approve this new thing as equally orthodox and binding, whether standing alone or sharing like status and authority.

Many who casually clamor for a new confession have no idea of the paradigm shift entailed in such an action.

 

[DMcFadden]

A lot of reformed Baptists I have spoken with seem to take exception with the sabbatarianism that is contained in the LBC. Other than that, they may just desire something in simpler language since no one speaks English anymore

There are 1689LBCs with updated language available.

[". . . no one speaks English anymore."]

A new confession would be desirable IF there are problems with understanding the old one (see above), IF there are reasons not to believe the old one, OR IF there are things that should be stated to apply even more pointedly to the context of today (either points left out of the old ones or requiring a more specific statement).

Considering the number of exceptions permitted in some of the Reformed denominations, I'm guessing that some of the Reformed groups honor the Westminster Standards more in the breach than in the observance?

For my money, I do not know a more beautiful or elegant set of confessional standards than the Westminster. While they may lack some of the warmth of the Heidelberg, they are a masterpiece and a gift to the Christian family.

My guess is that appeals for changes to them (or to the genetically related, more water-filled LBCF), relates more to a desire to get rid of the things that people commonly take exceptions to or restate them in a more dumbed down vernacular.

 

[Herald]

A lot of reformed Baptists I have spoken with seem to take exception with the sabbatarianism that is contained in the LBC. Other than that, they may just desire something in simpler language since no one speaks English anymore

ift to the Christian family.

My guess is that appeals for changes to them (or to the genetically related, more water-filled LBCF), relates more to a desire to get rid of the things that people commonly take exceptions to or restate them in a more dumbed down vernacular.

Dennis, I'm not sure what you mean by "water filled" re: LBCF, but I agree that the motivation behind a new confession is to remove/introduce doctrine. I am not willing to grant the premise of those advocating a new confession that the idea has merit. Show me where the current confessional doctrine is wrong. All the conversations I have seen on this topic fail to address that issue. Its all about "new" and being "relevant" to a new generation. I can't help but see this as post-modern argumentation.



Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3

 

[Pergamum]

Dr. Gonzales has argued for an updating of the language into modern english - which is a valid point to argue:

Confessing the Faith: the 1689 for the 21st Century | It Is Written

Here's the forward of a new book updating the language of the 1689:

The truths that this confession promoted fell out of favor for much of the twentieth century, but in the last fifty years there has been a great recovery of gospel truth among Evangelicals and once again there are those deeply committed to the doctrines of this confession. The English language, however, has changed over time, and just as there are phrases in the Authorized Version (1611), also known as the King James Version, that are no longer as clear as they once were due to linguistic change, so it is the case with the 1689 Confession. For this reason, this new rendition of the confession by Dr. Reeves is indeed welcome. He has sought to render it readable by the typical twenty-first-century Christian reader, but with minimal change and without sacrificing any of the riches of the original text. I believe he has succeeded admirably in both of these aims.

From the Foreword
Michael A.G. Haykin
Professor of Church History
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, KY

Also, elsewhere, Dr. Gonzales has made a few suggestions about the content of the confessions, here:

Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Affirming Inerrancy | It Is Written

For example, he suggests that the confession be updated in order to affirm inerrancy more explicitly:

As Michael Horton observes, “Inerrancy was assumed more than explicitly formulated until it was challenged” in the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries.1. But with the advent of modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and neo-evangelicalism, the exact nature and extent of the Bible’s inspiration and infallibility came under intense debate.

Rather than dumbing-down the confession, it seems like many of the proposed changes would make doctrine more explicit (such as more closely defining inerrancy, marriage roles, etc). So any charge of desiring to "dumb-down the confession" doesn't seem justified.

However, ours is not a confessional age and it seems difficult/impossible for independents to propose a binding new confession anyway.

I will remind Reformed Baptist readers that even many who claim strict subscriptionism will say things like Pastor Samuel Waldron does about the section where it says that the Pope is the Antichrist. Waldron, who I am sure claims to be confessional and who wrote a book about the 1689, writes (page 315) thusly about the Pope being Antichrist,

"This is one of those statements which would properly be deleted in a revision of the Confession."

Also, on page 484 and other places, Waldron speaks of "oversights" on the part of the writers of the 1689.

I don't find Dr. Gonzales saying much more than Waldron here.

 

[Pergamum]

Here is the full quote by Pastor Sam Waldron below. To my knowledge, nobody has ever charged Waldron of trying to dumb-down the confession or of being "unconfessional" for his critique below of the words of those wise men who drew up the original confession:

This is one of those statements which would properly be deleted in a revision of the Confession. Such a deletion must, however, be made, not because of any weakening of our convictions about the apostate condition of the church of Rome or the wicked and heretical character of the claims of the pope, but out of the exegetical conviction that the statement of the Confession is false or without adequate basis.

The OPC and the PCA have both removed that bit about the Pope is the Antichrist. I don't see anything overly controversial in Dr. Gonzales suggesting the same.

 

[JohnGill]

We have modern Bible versions, so why not a modern confession. If the arguments put forth for new Bible versions are not valid for a modern confession, then they are not valid for modern Bible versions. Consistency requires total denial or total affirmation. It is inconsistent to affirm the one and deny the other.

 

[KMK]

A well known figure among Reformed Baptists is on record as supporting a new Reformed confession.

Why doesn't he write one? Why doesn't his church write one? We are Baptists. Aren't we supposed to be autonomous anyway. Its not like we are Presbyterians and need some kind of General Council to change a confession.

Unless the part that he wants to change is the one that says, "To each of these churches therefore gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he has given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he has instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.

 

[Tripel]

Any new Confession would certainly be less precise in any number of areas than the old Confessions. That much is sure.

Westminster was backed by the state and it still took them 7 years. And don't get me started on the number of extraordinary men there (how many of our leading lights rank extraordinary?).

I don't think the men tasked to writing the WCF were any more extraordinary than men in today's church. The confessions are not the Word of God, so I have no reason to think that Christian leaders today couldn't do just as good of a job. And trust me that this is in no way a criticism of Puritans. I'm just pointing out that they were human, and we have humans today who are just as wise and godly.

Do I think a new confession is necessary? Not really. The WCF is good enough for me. But if another good one is written, I'm happy to check it out. Just because a new one is written by 21st century minds does not mean it is inferior.

The only writings that cannot be improved upon are the very words of God.

 

[Pergamum]

I think the OP most directly relates to a revision of the 1689 Baptist Confession and not the WCF.

 

[Herald]

A well known figure among Reformed Baptists is on record as supporting a new Reformed confession.

Why doesn't he write one? Why doesn't his church write one? We are Baptists. Aren't we supposed to be autonomous anyway. Its not like we are Presbyterians and need some kind of General Council to change a confession.

Unless the part that he wants to change is the one that says, "To each of these churches therefore gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he has given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he has instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.

Ken, it is not so much a matter of "he" as it is the idea itself. A new confession has been championed by others. To answer your question, perhaps the reason "he" has not written one is because it would lack the weight of consensus. What allowed the LBCF to speak for so many was the weight given it by the number, and quality, of the signatories.

Pergy was the only poster to mention anything close to a deficiency in the LBCF. I agree that the Pope is not the (definite article) Antichrist. I believe he is the spirit of Antichrist, so maybe I take an exception in that area. Do I want to see that portion of the confession redacted? Not particularly. Why? Because of the almost certain meddling by those with a more robust agenda. With some it is not just about updating the language, but actual changes to content. That is my personal concern. As with my preference for the modern NASB, I would not object to a 21st Century voice in the confession. But guarantee to me that is where it will stop. Those who are proposing a new confession will balk at that.

 

[Herald]

I think the OP most directly relates to a revision of the 1689 Baptist Confession and not the WCF.

Mostly. But the leading proponent of this calls it a "new Reformed confession." I will not speak about his intent, but what if this new confession blurs the lines of distinction between Baptists and Presbyterians? What if it speaks to both sides of baptism, or a non-offensive view of the sacrament/ordinance? I can see some having that has part of their agenda.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Pergamum]

Bill,

Isn't changing the definite article in relation to the Pope a change in content and not merely a change in wording?

Also, your use of the term "meddling" is a curious one. What distinguishes between "updating" or "clarifying," "redacting," and "meddling?"

I think that it is a reasonable goal to call together dozens of leading RB pastors to update or craft a revised document, especially in this age of conferences and preacher's meetings and associations.

This may not be top priority at present (I believe that missions-sending from RB churches needs to be top priority at this time....our head knowledge eventually needs to lead to greater action in missions sooner or later)...but it is a worthy goal nonetheless.

I would love to see documents addressing life issues, gender/marriage issues, and the current struggles of the church added as well, in the form of position papers.

 

[Pergamum]

p.s. what do you think his intent and agenda is?

 

[Herald]

Pergy, my use of "meddling" has to do with the intent of those who want a new confession. Is it all about using the vernacular of the day? Is that all they want? They need to be up front with their agenda. Also, what do they want changed? What do they want added? Why?

Does any confession adequately represent every minute point of doctrine; address every social context; or claim to be infallible? No. Nor do I think that was the intent of the divines. In my opinion the exception to "the" Antichrist does not affect the theological integrity of the confession. But even though I take that exception I am quite pleased to be in the company of those who confessed the most important doctrines of the Christian faith.

So, it comes back to my primary questions. What is lacking and what changes need to be made?

I like your idea about position papers. They have the ability to address specific issues while maintaining the integrity of the confessions.



Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Herald]

p.s. what do you think his intent and agenda is?

I have already said that I cannot speak as to "his" intent or agenda. I can guess as to the intent and agenda of some. I have already given an opinion on that.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I think the men you may think are just the same as those back then and could do what they did, would disagree with you. And I'm happy you are fine with the WCF, because I expect we won't see anything similar for some time. The church is too fractured and full of heterodoxy and I suspect, if the thought is something just like the WCF, we need a century of persecution first. It may be, the next "WCF" or better than even, won't be by white English speaking folks.

Any new Confession would certainly be less precise in any number of areas than the old Confessions. That much is sure.

Westminster was backed by the state and it still took them 7 years. And don't get me started on the number of extraordinary men there (how many of our leading lights rank extraordinary?).

I don't think the men tasked to writing the WCF were any more extraordinary than men in today's church. The confessions are not the Word of God, so I have no reason to think that Christian leaders today couldn't do just as good of a job. And trust me that this is in no way a criticism of Puritans. I'm just pointing out that they were human, and we have humans today who are just as wise and godly.

Do I think a new confession is necessary? Not really. The WCF is good enough for me. But if another good one is written, I'm happy to check it out. Just because a new one is written by 21st century minds does not mean it is inferior.

The only writings that cannot be improved upon are the very words of God.

 

[Rich Koster]

"26.4 The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. In him is vested, by the appointment of the Father in a supreme and sovereign manner, all authority for the calling, institution, order and government of the church.1 The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be the head of the church, but he is the* (“that” in original LBC) antichrist, that 'man of lawlessness', and 'son of destruction', who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

Notice the language that was updated in this chapter.

 

[Herald]

"26.4 The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. In him is vested, by the appointment of the Father in a supreme and sovereign manner, all authority for the calling, institution, order and government of the church.1 The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be the head of the church, but he is the* (“that” in original LBC) antichrist, that 'man of lawlessness', and 'son of destruction', who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

Notice the language that was updated in this chapter.

Rich, I do not want to derail the thread, but I have been so back and forth on that one part that I have taken the position of "I do not know." So, my exception is more of being unsettled on the matter.

Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3