Support constructing new confessions

[bookslover]

The Older Confessions are great and could not be written any better.

Well, in principle, they can always be written better, simply because we must reserve perfection for the Scriptures themselves (in the originals, that is). Since secondary standards are neither infallible nor inerrant, we must always assume that they can be improved.

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, I am always betwixt two opinions on this...

Confessions are not inspired, and are thus always open for "correction" or "improvement" but then also I believe "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." and if we started from scratch without referencing the WCF and 1689 at least, I am not sure we could surpass the quality.

 

[beej6]

In theory I would vote yes, because it would be an interesting exercise in, for example, what even the NAPARC churches and leaders could agree on... but in practice I would say the honest amending of our confessions by current church practice is either neglected or ignored in favor of more arbitrary extra-confessional changes by ruling bodies. So no. Amend your current confessions.

 

[jogri17]

I would support new confessions to be written for groups that are orthodox and evangelical yet not Reformed. I would love to see Sovereign Grace Ministries to draw up a confession about the same length of the Belgic or Westminster so that we could have honest theological dialoque as opposed to ''I heard Joshua Harris, CJ, Piper, Grudem, ect..'' say ______________. Which is in essence what I get when I talk theology with my brothers and sisters in the denomination. For myself I love the Westminster Standards (I like the Three Forms of Unity) and I could not see myself using any others however for other non-Reformed calvinistic groups go for it.