confessional versus confessionalist?

[Pergamum]

I love the 1689. I hold to the 1689.

There is a wisdom to those historic documents. They remind us that it is not "just me and my bible" but that the church of God has existed for ages and these confessions are part of our historic corporate witness.


Yet, I feel just fine that my friends do not adopt the 1689, but instead make their own church confessions. Some hold to the 1644. If they have church problems I do not suggest that they get more confessional.

I am thus confessional. But I do not advocate confessionalism as a solution to problems.

I would even rather see local churches craft their own confessions of faith rather than merely adopt the 1689. Although adoption of the 1689 as one preaches through it might also be a good strategy (if the church "owns it").


If I planted US churches, I would not always push for them to adopt the 1689. Certainly any church confession we personally wrote and owned would agree with the 1689, but would not need to even closely resemble it.



Am I somehow "sub-confessional" then?

It appears that there is a difference in being confessional and desiring confessionalism.

While it is trite to say, "We do not need the confessions, we need the Scripture.." because, of course, we would not adopt such a confession if we did not believe it a good summary of Scripture. However, a greater push towards confessionalism does not seem to be the answer.

I have not personally seen any difference between those churches that hold to an old, tradition confession than one that writes and owns its own. In fact, entire denominations have fallen away - even despite the confessions.



Thoughts?



P.S. this seems to be another dividing line between where the BR and TRs divide (broadly reformed and tighlty reformed or truly reformed). I am exploring this dynamic a little deeper. There is quite a large vareity in folsk who are confessional and reformed it seems. Help me to explore these issues further.

 

[Herald]

Pergy,

The historic confessions, in this case the 1689 LBC, was labored on by 37 pastors and theologians representing over 100 local churches. The level of scholarship that went into the major confessions is much higher than a local church is able to produce. Most churches would not labor to produce a confession as detailed as the 1689 LBC. Now, it is not necessary for a Reformed-leaning Baptist church to adopt the 1689 LBC as their statement of faith. But the question I would ask is, "why not?" One good answer is that a church may not agree with the 1689 LBC. If that is the case then they should not adopt it as their SOF. Older is not always better, but in the case of the historic confessions, they have proven to be true to the Reformed faith (baptism notwithstanding). If a church claims to be Reformed than they should be in agreement with the historic confessions that are the standard for being Reformed. If they are neo-Reformed, as I suspect most Reformed "leaning" churches are, then they can cut, paste and jury rig a doctrinal statement that they are happy with.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Moderator Note

Let me remind you all that this is a confessional board. You must subscribe to a confession or you will not be permitted to participate on this discussion forum. So let me warn you to tread carefully.

I whole heartedly believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith expresses the doctrine of the Bible.

 

[Herald]

I love the 1689. I hold to the 1689.

Brother, I hear you, but I have to ask how firm a grip do you have on the 1689 LBC? Is it a clenched fist or a weak handshake?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One more point. Confessionalism has been a great safeguard against bad teaching. The NPP and Federal Vision come to mind when I say that.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Am I somehow "sub-confessional" then?

Yes.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I love the 1689. I hold to the 1689.

Brother, I hear you, but I have to ask how firm a grip do you have on the 1689 LBC? Is it a clenched fist or a weak handshake?

Since I have studied it a little more this last year I would have to say it is a little more clinched. But my fellowship definitely goes beyond it because I recognize that there are brothers who disagree.

 

[MW]

A person who is confessional without being confessionalist is one who observes Phil 2, verse 1, but doesn't aim for complete joy in terms of Phil. 2, verse 2.

 

[Herald]

I love the 1689. I hold to the 1689.

Brother, I hear you, but I have to ask how firm a grip do you have on the 1689 LBC? Is it a clenched fist or a weak handshake?

Since I have studied it a little more this last year I would have to say it is a little more clinched. But my fellowship definitely is outside of it because I recognize that there are brothers who disagree.

Randy, same here. btw that question was directed at Pergy, not you. I wasn't questioning your stand on the LBC.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Brother, I hear you, but I have to ask how firm a grip do you have on the 1689 LBC? Is it a clenched fist or a weak handshake?

Since I have studied it a little more this last year I would have to say it is a little more clinched. But my fellowship definitely is outside of it because I recognize that there are brothers who disagree.

Randy, same here. btw that question was directed at Pergy, not you. I wasn't questioning your stand on the LBC.

I am still thick headed with a virus. Sorry.

Go ahead Pergy. You can give your answer. I wasn't trying to hog the story.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My thoughts? Honestly Pergamum, my thoughts are that I respect you and I like what you're doing but I also am going to stop providing a venue for your trashing of Reformed Confessions. You love them so much that you constantly trash the people that subscribe to them but have a love fest for people that are zealous for error. They can do no wrong - Oh, of course, that is unless they ever did you wrong (those stinking Fundies and their rules about beards or bowing down to flags!) But those fundies that bugged you and those other groups that you praise stem from the same misguided source - untrained ministers and untrained consciences who twist the Word of God and no strong Church to disciple them.

Confessions are simply a collection of doctrines. You cannot reify them. They're either true because they reflect the Word of God or just drop it. Seriously, if you could care less whether or not a disciple of Christ ever believes a word of the 1689 then you might as well use the piece of paper it's written on for toilet paper.

I'm sick of this. This last few weeks has been thread after thread after thread of trashing the Confessions. If you think the Confessions are so bad then join another board where they gladly join you in trashing it. You're through here.