Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
Vote according to your confession. If you are a Baptist I would expect you to think the wcf needs amending and vis versa.
[Edited on 5-14-2004 by fredtgreco]
[Edited on 5-14-2004 by fredtgreco]
Amend the Confessions?
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
- Status
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yeah, I think the wording of the poll could be a little misleading. Maybe don't use the word "perfect," and also specify whether or not someone should consider baptism in voting.
Chris
[Edited on 5-13-2004 by Me Died Blue]
Chris
[Edited on 5-13-2004 by Me Died Blue]
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
I think the confessions are fine the way they are and I'm against ammending them simply because of their historical value.
What we SHOULD do instead is gather a reformed/calvinistic body of believers together and write [i:4c2a923c92]modern[/i:4c2a923c92] confessions. We've had some measure of success with things like [i:4c2a923c92]The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration[/i:4c2a923c92]. What we need to do (as a follow-up) is to urge churches and pastors who have signed on to this to adopt it as their doctrinal statement for their church and teach from/on it. The same could be done in Reformed circles today.
What we SHOULD do instead is gather a reformed/calvinistic body of believers together and write [i:4c2a923c92]modern[/i:4c2a923c92] confessions. We've had some measure of success with things like [i:4c2a923c92]The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration[/i:4c2a923c92]. What we need to do (as a follow-up) is to urge churches and pastors who have signed on to this to adopt it as their doctrinal statement for their church and teach from/on it. The same could be done in Reformed circles today.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
[quote:dee39f3a5a][i:dee39f3a5a]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:dee39f3a5a]
I think the confessions are fine the way they are and I'm against ammending them simply because of their historical value.
What we SHOULD do instead is gather a reformed/calvinistic body of believers together and write [i:dee39f3a5a]modern[/i:dee39f3a5a] confessions. We've had some measure of success with things like [i:dee39f3a5a]The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration[/i:dee39f3a5a]. What we need to do (as a follow-up) is to urge churches and pastors who have signed on to this to adopt it as their doctrinal statement for their church and teach from/on it. The same could be done in Reformed circles today. [/quote:dee39f3a5a]
Kerry,
Why fix something thats not broken???
I think the confessions are fine the way they are and I'm against ammending them simply because of their historical value.
What we SHOULD do instead is gather a reformed/calvinistic body of believers together and write [i:dee39f3a5a]modern[/i:dee39f3a5a] confessions. We've had some measure of success with things like [i:dee39f3a5a]The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration[/i:dee39f3a5a]. What we need to do (as a follow-up) is to urge churches and pastors who have signed on to this to adopt it as their doctrinal statement for their church and teach from/on it. The same could be done in Reformed circles today. [/quote:dee39f3a5a]
Kerry,
Why fix something thats not broken???
Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
believe it or not the wcf and the 1689 will not be used in heaven. LOL
They are not perfect which means they are imperfect. The confessions are theology, and theology is man's interpretation of the Bible. It is an imperfect looking at the perfect.
OS_X, I firmly believe that the confessions are great for their historical value. However, our faith is not meerly historical, to be sure it is, but it is also living and present.
Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven.
Maybe this is just ramble . . .
They are not perfect which means they are imperfect. The confessions are theology, and theology is man's interpretation of the Bible. It is an imperfect looking at the perfect.
OS_X, I firmly believe that the confessions are great for their historical value. However, our faith is not meerly historical, to be sure it is, but it is also living and present.
Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven.
Maybe this is just ramble . . .
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
[quote:3ad892bdaa][i:3ad892bdaa]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:3ad892bdaa]
believe it or not the wcf and the 1689 will not be used in heaven. LOL
They are not perfect which means they are imperfect. The confessions are theology, and theology is man's interpretation of the Bible. It is an imperfect looking at the perfect.
OS_X, I firmly believe that the confessions are great for their historical value. However, our faith is not meerly historical, to be sure it is, but it is also living and present.
Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven.
Maybe this is just ramble . . . [/quote:3ad892bdaa]
Chris,
I want to respond to a few items:
"believe it or not the wcf and the 1689 will not be used in heaven."
I don't believe anyone _elevated_ the confessions to that level. Our implication is that this is a sound document used to summarize what reformed people believe the scriptures to state. This is not a bad thing; not that you are implying that, but by your statement, it seems as if you think some people act in such a manner.
Otherwise, I ditto you b!
believe it or not the wcf and the 1689 will not be used in heaven. LOL
They are not perfect which means they are imperfect. The confessions are theology, and theology is man's interpretation of the Bible. It is an imperfect looking at the perfect.
OS_X, I firmly believe that the confessions are great for their historical value. However, our faith is not meerly historical, to be sure it is, but it is also living and present.
Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven.
Maybe this is just ramble . . . [/quote:3ad892bdaa]
Chris,
I want to respond to a few items:
"believe it or not the wcf and the 1689 will not be used in heaven."
I don't believe anyone _elevated_ the confessions to that level. Our implication is that this is a sound document used to summarize what reformed people believe the scriptures to state. This is not a bad thing; not that you are implying that, but by your statement, it seems as if you think some people act in such a manner.
Otherwise, I ditto you b!
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:40e0c8d533][i:40e0c8d533]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:40e0c8d533]
Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven.
Maybe this is just ramble . . . [/quote:40e0c8d533]
Chris, I don't think the confessions should be amended for a couple of reasons:
1) I don't trust present day theologians. Even many "reformed" theologians are questionable (I wouldn't want Steve Schlissel rewriting the WCF).
2) I can't think of any part of the WCF with which I disagree. Why modify it if I don't disagree with it? ("If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it!"
3) What we need today is a return to the historical, reformed confessions - not a new and/or ammended confession.
A couple other things: I too strive for perfect theology. I just don't think I'll get it this side of heaven. Until then, I am very satisfied with the WCF, Heidelburg Catechism and the like.
Having said all that, I admit the WCF and other reformed confessions are man-made documents, and therefore not on the same level as Scripture and in fact, they can be changed/amended/rewritten - unlike Scripture.
Sastark, you said it is not perfect but is fine the way it is. Is that good enough? What are we striving for? Personaly I want a PERFECT theology! However I know my theology will never be perfect this side of heaven.
Maybe this is just ramble . . . [/quote:40e0c8d533]
Chris, I don't think the confessions should be amended for a couple of reasons:
1) I don't trust present day theologians. Even many "reformed" theologians are questionable (I wouldn't want Steve Schlissel rewriting the WCF).
2) I can't think of any part of the WCF with which I disagree. Why modify it if I don't disagree with it? ("If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it!"
3) What we need today is a return to the historical, reformed confessions - not a new and/or ammended confession.
A couple other things: I too strive for perfect theology. I just don't think I'll get it this side of heaven. Until then, I am very satisfied with the WCF, Heidelburg Catechism and the like.
Having said all that, I admit the WCF and other reformed confessions are man-made documents, and therefore not on the same level as Scripture and in fact, they can be changed/amended/rewritten - unlike Scripture.
Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
Scott, as always you hit it on the head. It is when people elevate the confession to the level of Scripture that is the problem. These are people who will go around quoting the confession rather than the Bible. I am sure that those who penned these wonderful documents did not have that in mind for their work.
Sastark,
Do you hold to every jot of those confessions?
Many folks do not hold to their writen confession 100% I suppose that is were the disciussion of loose and strict subscription comes in.
Maybe what should be asked is how you would amend the confessions to fit your personal theology. Would would you take out stuff about the pope? or some other issue? What would you put in that you think is important enough to you that you can not believe that it was overlooked?
I love you guys. I missed throwing stuff out like this when my computer was dead.
Sastark,
Do you hold to every jot of those confessions?
Many folks do not hold to their writen confession 100% I suppose that is were the disciussion of loose and strict subscription comes in.
Maybe what should be asked is how you would amend the confessions to fit your personal theology. Would would you take out stuff about the pope? or some other issue? What would you put in that you think is important enough to you that you can not believe that it was overlooked?
I love you guys. I missed throwing stuff out like this when my computer was dead.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I agree w/ the part about the pope; not that he's the only antiChrist, but one of them!
So, I say, leave it in.......the point is taken.
So, I say, leave it in.......the point is taken.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Every word that comes from thee mouth of God is our confession of Faith
sastark;
Actually, I don't think the confessions can be changed. Whenever anyone says "London Baptist Confession" or "Westminster Confession", they mean the historical documents. There's no body with the recoginized authority to change them so any new version can't ever be "official" like the old ones are.
OTOH, there's no reason not to just say they're wrong about something, if that's what you think.
Actually, I don't think the confessions can be changed. Whenever anyone says "London Baptist Confession" or "Westminster Confession", they mean the historical documents. There's no body with the recoginized authority to change them so any new version can't ever be "official" like the old ones are.
OTOH, there's no reason not to just say they're wrong about something, if that's what you think.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Chris did someone punch you in the face because you said the confessions wernt perfect
Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:3324e089ac][i:3324e089ac]Originally posted by Preach[/i:3324e089ac]
Christopher,
Do you think that we need any confession? I'm thinking what the implications of this discussion would be on ordination. What should be the standard(s) of who passes ordination and who does not? [/quote:3324e089ac]
Do we need confessions? YES!!!! Creed have been around since the church has and longer. They have defined the true faith in opposition to the heritics. However, they have also been used to cause divisiveness in Christ's body where there should be none.
Should our personal theology match our confession. Yes. there are some who hold to the mentioned confession that actually do not hold to every jot. there are some who say they agree with it all but atempt to change the intent of the confessions authors.
As far as standards, well the Bible is the ultimate standard. But we are talking about does the candidate believe the same things about the Bible as the ordaining church. It is perfectly valid to have like minded members and leaders. However, I am firmly against doctrinal cloning. there should be room for disagreement on certain issues. What issues are those to fuss over? Well, they are too many for some and not enough for others.
Our theology should be reforming throughout our lives. Some time we may come to a conviction of something learned from the Scriptures that contradicts the way that our confesion has seen it. In those cases the confession must be abandon in favor of the highest authority, the Bible.
Maybe our churces shoud have broader confessions for membership. Ones that agree on essentials but leave it to the individual to fill in the details.
I am becoming increasingly consernedthese days about the division in the church of God. We are often becoming so concerned about the peripherals (sp?) that we loose what binds us in common, the Cross of Jesus Christ. I think that the orthodox church is causing unneccisary division in His body by focusing on secondary issues. Shame on us. It s a disgrace to the Lord.
Well, again I am rambling.
Christopher,
Do you think that we need any confession? I'm thinking what the implications of this discussion would be on ordination. What should be the standard(s) of who passes ordination and who does not? [/quote:3324e089ac]
Do we need confessions? YES!!!! Creed have been around since the church has and longer. They have defined the true faith in opposition to the heritics. However, they have also been used to cause divisiveness in Christ's body where there should be none.
Should our personal theology match our confession. Yes. there are some who hold to the mentioned confession that actually do not hold to every jot. there are some who say they agree with it all but atempt to change the intent of the confessions authors.
As far as standards, well the Bible is the ultimate standard. But we are talking about does the candidate believe the same things about the Bible as the ordaining church. It is perfectly valid to have like minded members and leaders. However, I am firmly against doctrinal cloning. there should be room for disagreement on certain issues. What issues are those to fuss over? Well, they are too many for some and not enough for others.
Our theology should be reforming throughout our lives. Some time we may come to a conviction of something learned from the Scriptures that contradicts the way that our confesion has seen it. In those cases the confession must be abandon in favor of the highest authority, the Bible.
Maybe our churces shoud have broader confessions for membership. Ones that agree on essentials but leave it to the individual to fill in the details.
I am becoming increasingly consernedthese days about the division in the church of God. We are often becoming so concerned about the peripherals (sp?) that we loose what binds us in common, the Cross of Jesus Christ. I think that the orthodox church is causing unneccisary division in His body by focusing on secondary issues. Shame on us. It s a disgrace to the Lord.
Well, again I am rambling.
Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:6107eb48aa][i:6107eb48aa]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:6107eb48aa]
Chris did someone punch you in the face because you said the confessions wernt perfect [/quote:6107eb48aa]
What are you talking about? all of us San Diego people look something like this, rigth Paul?
Chris did someone punch you in the face because you said the confessions wernt perfect
[/quote:6107eb48aa]What are you talking about? all of us San Diego people look something like this, rigth Paul?
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
All you need is hook attached to your mouth and fishing line going up to OPEC holding the fishing pole.
blade
blade
[quote:c01a4ae8de][i:c01a4ae8de]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:c01a4ae8de]
[quote:c01a4ae8de][i:c01a4ae8de]Originally posted by Preach[/i:c01a4ae8de]
Christopher,
Do you think that we need any confession? I'm thinking what the implications of this discussion would be on ordination. What should be the standard(s) of who passes ordination and who does not? [/quote:c01a4ae8de]
Do we need confessions? YES!!!! Creed have been around since the church has and longer. They have defined the true faith in opposition to the heritics. However, they have also been used to cause divisiveness in Christ's body where there should be none.
Should our personal theology match our confession. Yes. there are some who hold to the mentioned confession that actually do not hold to every jot. there are some who say they agree with it all but atempt to change the intent of the confessions authors.
As far as standards, well the Bible is the ultimate standard. But we are talking about does the candidate believe the same things about the Bible as the ordaining church. It is perfectly valid to have like minded members and leaders. However, I am firmly against doctrinal cloning. there should be room for disagreement on certain issues. What issues are those to fuss over? Well, they are too many for some and not enough for others.
Our theology should be reforming throughout our lives. Some time we may come to a conviction of something learned from the Scriptures that contradicts the way that our confesion has seen it. In those cases the confession must be abandon in favor of the highest authority, the Bible.
Maybe our churces shoud have broader confessions for membership. Ones that agree on essentials but leave it to the individual to fill in the details.
I am becoming increasingly consernedthese days about the division in the church of God. We are often becoming so concerned about the peripherals (sp?) that we loose what binds us in common, the Cross of Jesus Christ. I think that the orthodox church is causing unneccisary division in His body by focusing on secondary issues. Shame on us. It s a disgrace to the Lord.
Well, again I am rambling. [/quote:c01a4ae8de]
Christopher,
Did you ever think that the division might not be the cause o the Confession for insisting on a doctrine (say the Sabbath), but on the individual for insisting that he not submit to the Church and have his own will paramount?
[quote:c01a4ae8de][i:c01a4ae8de]Originally posted by Preach[/i:c01a4ae8de]
Christopher,
Do you think that we need any confession? I'm thinking what the implications of this discussion would be on ordination. What should be the standard(s) of who passes ordination and who does not? [/quote:c01a4ae8de]
Do we need confessions? YES!!!! Creed have been around since the church has and longer. They have defined the true faith in opposition to the heritics. However, they have also been used to cause divisiveness in Christ's body where there should be none.
Should our personal theology match our confession. Yes. there are some who hold to the mentioned confession that actually do not hold to every jot. there are some who say they agree with it all but atempt to change the intent of the confessions authors.
As far as standards, well the Bible is the ultimate standard. But we are talking about does the candidate believe the same things about the Bible as the ordaining church. It is perfectly valid to have like minded members and leaders. However, I am firmly against doctrinal cloning. there should be room for disagreement on certain issues. What issues are those to fuss over? Well, they are too many for some and not enough for others.
Our theology should be reforming throughout our lives. Some time we may come to a conviction of something learned from the Scriptures that contradicts the way that our confesion has seen it. In those cases the confession must be abandon in favor of the highest authority, the Bible.
Maybe our churces shoud have broader confessions for membership. Ones that agree on essentials but leave it to the individual to fill in the details.
I am becoming increasingly consernedthese days about the division in the church of God. We are often becoming so concerned about the peripherals (sp?) that we loose what binds us in common, the Cross of Jesus Christ. I think that the orthodox church is causing unneccisary division in His body by focusing on secondary issues. Shame on us. It s a disgrace to the Lord.
Well, again I am rambling. [/quote:c01a4ae8de]
Christopher,
Did you ever think that the division might not be the cause o the Confession for insisting on a doctrine (say the Sabbath), but on the individual for insisting that he not submit to the Church and have his own will paramount?
[quote:261f67921e][i:261f67921e]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:261f67921e]
Confessions are historical documents.
Do not change them. That would be like changing the Mona Lisa.
If you do not like them write a new one. [/quote:261f67921e]
We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten "40 Days of Purpose" are produced.
While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying "Some people 2000 years ago believed" but "[b:261f67921e]I believe[/b:261f67921e]" The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity.
Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible.
Confessions are historical documents.
Do not change them. That would be like changing the Mona Lisa.
If you do not like them write a new one. [/quote:261f67921e]
We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten "40 Days of Purpose" are produced.
While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying "Some people 2000 years ago believed" but "[b:261f67921e]I believe[/b:261f67921e]" The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity.
Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible.
[quote:e3bce9548e][i:e3bce9548e]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e3bce9548e]
We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten "40 Days of Purpose" are produced.
While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying "Some people 2000 years ago believed" but "I believe" The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity.
Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible.
[/quote:e3bce9548e]
I think that is very well said.
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of an ecumenical movement that attempted to write creeds? I know of a couple (OS_X menitioned one). I also know there is one that holds to the 5 solas(reformed, Baptist, and Lutheran's).
We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten "40 Days of Purpose" are produced.
While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying "Some people 2000 years ago believed" but "I believe" The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity.
Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible.
[/quote:e3bce9548e]
I think that is very well said.
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of an ecumenical movement that attempted to write creeds? I know of a couple (OS_X menitioned one). I also know there is one that holds to the 5 solas(reformed, Baptist, and Lutheran's).
twogunfighter
Puritan Board Freshman
Leave them like they are; if you cannot subscribe to the confessionof your church strictly then don't be an elder in that church.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:c8fd3d6d64][i:c8fd3d6d64]Originally posted by raderag[/i:c8fd3d6d64]
[quote:c8fd3d6d64][i:c8fd3d6d64]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c8fd3d6d64]
We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten "40 Days of Purpose" are produced.
While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying "Some people 2000 years ago believed" but "I believe" The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity.
Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible.
[/quote:c8fd3d6d64]
I think that is very well said.[/quote:c8fd3d6d64]
Amen. As I said in a recent similar thread, I don't think that, say, the WCF, actually needs to be amended. I believe it to be a sufficient (albeit imperfect by default) statement of the biblical truth for this life. However, as Fred excellently pointed out here, it is important that we recognize such documents as [i:c8fd3d6d64]amendable by nature[/i:c8fd3d6d64] even if we do not think we will ever see a need to amend them. As he said, they are not [i:c8fd3d6d64]solely[/i:c8fd3d6d64] historical documents, but expressions of our living faith today. It is recognizing them as amendable by nature, and saying that we would be willing to amend them if a specific error ever could be pointed out in one of them, that allows us to adhere to both confessionalism and Sola Scriptura, and sets us apart from Rome on the issue.
[quote:c8fd3d6d64][i:c8fd3d6d64]Originally posted by raderag[/i:c8fd3d6d64]
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of an ecumenical movement that attempted to write creeds? I know of a couple (OS_X menitioned one). I also know there is one that holds to the 5 solas(reformed, Baptist, and Lutheran's). [/quote:c8fd3d6d64]
This seems like another discussion altogether to me. The issue of confessionalism within Reformed Christendom and the issue of ecumenical confessions and how far they can beneficially be taken are two totally different issues. If you want to discuss the issue you mentioned of modern ecumenical creeds, maybe start a thread for that.
In Christ,
Chris
[quote:c8fd3d6d64][i:c8fd3d6d64]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c8fd3d6d64]
We are not in a creed writing age. If there was ever an assembly to write a new confession it would be near weak and purposeless. For ever attempt today to do serious theology, ten "40 Days of Purpose" are produced.
While Confessions are historical documents, they are also current personal documents. When we recite the Apostles' Creed, for example, we are not saying "Some people 2000 years ago believed" but "I believe" The Westminster Confession of Faith is MY confession of faith. That is why it is dear to me, not because it is a historical curiousity.
Confessions must be amendable, and by definition MUST BE AMENDED if they are wrong - since the reason would be to make them conform to the teaching of the Bible.
[/quote:c8fd3d6d64]
I think that is very well said.[/quote:c8fd3d6d64]
Amen. As I said in a recent similar thread, I don't think that, say, the WCF, actually needs to be amended. I believe it to be a sufficient (albeit imperfect by default) statement of the biblical truth for this life. However, as Fred excellently pointed out here, it is important that we recognize such documents as [i:c8fd3d6d64]amendable by nature[/i:c8fd3d6d64] even if we do not think we will ever see a need to amend them. As he said, they are not [i:c8fd3d6d64]solely[/i:c8fd3d6d64] historical documents, but expressions of our living faith today. It is recognizing them as amendable by nature, and saying that we would be willing to amend them if a specific error ever could be pointed out in one of them, that allows us to adhere to both confessionalism and Sola Scriptura, and sets us apart from Rome on the issue.
[quote:c8fd3d6d64][i:c8fd3d6d64]Originally posted by raderag[/i:c8fd3d6d64]
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of an ecumenical movement that attempted to write creeds? I know of a couple (OS_X menitioned one). I also know there is one that holds to the 5 solas(reformed, Baptist, and Lutheran's). [/quote:c8fd3d6d64]
This seems like another discussion altogether to me. The issue of confessionalism within Reformed Christendom and the issue of ecumenical confessions and how far they can beneficially be taken are two totally different issues. If you want to discuss the issue you mentioned of modern ecumenical creeds, maybe start a thread for that.
In Christ,
Chris
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
Not an 'ecumenical' movement where, for example, you have Norm Geisler AND R.C. Sproul AND Bill Craig AND Greg Boyd fleshing out something. Craig, Geisler and Sproul would be bashing Boyd (open theism), Boyd, Geisler and Craig bashing Sproul (predestination), Geisler and Craig bashing Boyd, Boyd and Craig playing pattycake with Geisler, Sproul shaking his head in disgust and the list goes on.
I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed.
I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:ce09fd9778][i:ce09fd9778]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:ce09fd9778]
Not an 'ecumenical' movement where, for example, you have Norm Geisler AND R.C. Sproul AND Bill Craig AND Greg Boyd fleshing out something. Craig, Geisler and Sproul would be bashing Boyd (open theism), Boyd, Geisler and Craig bashing Sproul (predestination), Geisler and Craig bashing Boyd, Boyd and Craig playing pattycake with Geisler, Sproul shaking his head in disgust and the list goes on.
I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed. [/quote:ce09fd9778]
Kerry and Christopher and all:
I have a few things to say about this subject, but Idon't have the time today. I feel compelled to say this because in the last few weeks I have had little opportunity to put in my two cents, and a number of discussions fizzled before I had a chance to reach in my pocket and find two pennies.
What I do want to say is that this discussion is very important in my view. It pertains to how we view and/or respect the confessions, and what we inadvertantly do when we speak of our own faith as not subject to them even in part, as if we can pick and choose from them.
I was a member of a church once where such a thing as a certain and sure Biblical teaching was assumed only on things that were not in question. But as soon as any teaching became in question, the Biblical certainty of it was no longer assumed. Some viewed it this way, some that way; and both parties had to be assumed to be faithfully sincere. But this denies the perspcuity of Scripture, subjecting it to the vicissitudes of men's beliefs. The truth of the confessions, yes and even of Scripture itself, depended not the clarity of the truth, but on men's varying understandings. It was as if one thing was true for one, and another thing was true for another.
The reason we have confessions at all is to put a circle around those things which are universally expected to be believed of those who are of the household of faith. Yes, there are some notable differences from one confession to another, and they are not easily resolved. But neither do they wrongly divide the household of faith; as Baptist are free to believe as they sincerely will, and Presbyterians to believe as they sincerely will. Within each group, the faithful are not to be too free to raise themselves above the Confessions, even if they have good and sufficient reasons for calling certain nuances or meanings into question. For it is the teachings in the Confession that are accepted and sought after, not his particular persuasion.
The Confessions state faithfully and clearly, within a limited scope, the teachings of Scripture. It is the teachings, teh expressions of sound Biblical reasoning, not the documents themselves, which we hold in high regard, so that there is no dichotomous standard in the churches.
That's all I have time for, for now. It is the way I feel about this very timely topic. It's what I would like to add to the good posts so far.
Not an 'ecumenical' movement where, for example, you have Norm Geisler AND R.C. Sproul AND Bill Craig AND Greg Boyd fleshing out something. Craig, Geisler and Sproul would be bashing Boyd (open theism), Boyd, Geisler and Craig bashing Sproul (predestination), Geisler and Craig bashing Boyd, Boyd and Craig playing pattycake with Geisler, Sproul shaking his head in disgust and the list goes on.
I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed. [/quote:ce09fd9778]
Kerry and Christopher and all:
I have a few things to say about this subject, but Idon't have the time today. I feel compelled to say this because in the last few weeks I have had little opportunity to put in my two cents, and a number of discussions fizzled before I had a chance to reach in my pocket and find two pennies.
What I do want to say is that this discussion is very important in my view. It pertains to how we view and/or respect the confessions, and what we inadvertantly do when we speak of our own faith as not subject to them even in part, as if we can pick and choose from them.
I was a member of a church once where such a thing as a certain and sure Biblical teaching was assumed only on things that were not in question. But as soon as any teaching became in question, the Biblical certainty of it was no longer assumed. Some viewed it this way, some that way; and both parties had to be assumed to be faithfully sincere. But this denies the perspcuity of Scripture, subjecting it to the vicissitudes of men's beliefs. The truth of the confessions, yes and even of Scripture itself, depended not the clarity of the truth, but on men's varying understandings. It was as if one thing was true for one, and another thing was true for another.
The reason we have confessions at all is to put a circle around those things which are universally expected to be believed of those who are of the household of faith. Yes, there are some notable differences from one confession to another, and they are not easily resolved. But neither do they wrongly divide the household of faith; as Baptist are free to believe as they sincerely will, and Presbyterians to believe as they sincerely will. Within each group, the faithful are not to be too free to raise themselves above the Confessions, even if they have good and sufficient reasons for calling certain nuances or meanings into question. For it is the teachings in the Confession that are accepted and sought after, not his particular persuasion.
The Confessions state faithfully and clearly, within a limited scope, the teachings of Scripture. It is the teachings, teh expressions of sound Biblical reasoning, not the documents themselves, which we hold in high regard, so that there is no dichotomous standard in the churches.
That's all I have time for, for now. It is the way I feel about this very timely topic. It's what I would like to add to the good posts so far.
[quote:d4a758aadf][i:d4a758aadf]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:d4a758aadf]
Not an 'ecumenical' movement where, for example, you have Norm Geisler AND R.C. Sproul AND Bill Craig AND Greg Boyd fleshing out something. Craig, Geisler and Sproul would be bashing Boyd (open theism), Boyd, Geisler and Craig bashing Sproul (predestination), Geisler and Craig bashing Boyd, Boyd and Craig playing pattycake with Geisler, Sproul shaking his head in disgust and the list goes on.
I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed. [/quote:d4a758aadf]
Kerry,
You already have this in the ecumenical creeds plus stuff like the Chicago Statement on Inerrency. What you describe would never work, because a Confession is what binds a church together, and there are too many differences.
The result would be a watered down, near-useless document that could not touch on the sacraments (disagreements abound there!), Scripture (Grudem's continuing prophecy preventing that), worship, or even the authority of the confession itself (Frame wouldn't have that!)
So you end up with a statement on basic Scriptural principles, the decrees, the Person and Work of Christ - basically the ecumenical creeds and inerrency statements. In the end no reformed man could sign on, since such a "creed" would view the sacraments as unimportant, when they are vital to the life of the church, and the most important function of the church, worship, would be ignored too. Better to stay with our creeds and work on ecumenical involvement (within parameters).
Not an 'ecumenical' movement where, for example, you have Norm Geisler AND R.C. Sproul AND Bill Craig AND Greg Boyd fleshing out something. Craig, Geisler and Sproul would be bashing Boyd (open theism), Boyd, Geisler and Craig bashing Sproul (predestination), Geisler and Craig bashing Boyd, Boyd and Craig playing pattycake with Geisler, Sproul shaking his head in disgust and the list goes on.
I was thinking a CALVINISTIC venture of sorts...where, for example, you'd have R.C. Sprouls (Sr. and Jr.), MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Gentry, James White, Allistair Begg, John Piper, David King and Bill Webster, Horton, Wells, Schreiner, Ware, Frame, Grudem, Pipa, Strimple, Lig and others working corporately to create a common modern day creed. [/quote:d4a758aadf]
Kerry,
You already have this in the ecumenical creeds plus stuff like the Chicago Statement on Inerrency. What you describe would never work, because a Confession is what binds a church together, and there are too many differences.
The result would be a watered down, near-useless document that could not touch on the sacraments (disagreements abound there!), Scripture (Grudem's continuing prophecy preventing that), worship, or even the authority of the confession itself (Frame wouldn't have that!)
So you end up with a statement on basic Scriptural principles, the decrees, the Person and Work of Christ - basically the ecumenical creeds and inerrency statements. In the end no reformed man could sign on, since such a "creed" would view the sacraments as unimportant, when they are vital to the life of the church, and the most important function of the church, worship, would be ignored too. Better to stay with our creeds and work on ecumenical involvement (within parameters).
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
From the way things look Christ is coming back soon enough pray and read the word and spread it.
blade
blade
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:7f5e4285a7][i:7f5e4285a7]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:7f5e4285a7]
From the way things look Christ is coming back soon enough pray and read the word and spread it.
blade [/quote:7f5e4285a7]
That depends on one's eschatology.
[Edited on 5-15-2004 by Me Died Blue]
From the way things look Christ is coming back soon enough pray and read the word and spread it.
blade [/quote:7f5e4285a7]
That depends on one's eschatology
.[Edited on 5-15-2004 by Me Died Blue]
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
which hence depends on the bible
and hence depends on God
and hence depends on God
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
And God depends on...oh, sorry, still recovering from my Arminian upbringing 
.
.- Status
