Time For a New Reformed Confession?

[Wayne]

On the desire to unite denominations, taking the OPC and PCA as an illustration--what separates the two is not the Westminster Standards or how the members of each denomination hold them.
What separates the OPC and the PCA is polity--how each conducts meetings of the Church at the Presbytery and General Assembly levels (esp. GA). The OPC has an ecclesiastical culture that treasures extended debate, to the point that one never "calls the question" to end debate. Rather, the floor is open until everyone is through. The PCA on the other hand is run like a business meeting, with limited times for floor debate.
Revision of the Standards would not even touch that divide.

 

[Particular Baptist]

On the desire to unite denominations, taking the OPC and PCA as an illustration--what separates the two is not the Westminster Standards or how the members of each denomination hold them.
What separates the OPC and the PCA is polity--how each conducts meetings of the Church at the Presbytery and General Assembly levels (esp. GA). The OPC has an ecclesiastical culture that treasures extended debate, to the point that one never "calls the question" to end debate. Rather, the floor is open until everyone is through. The PCA on the other hand is run like a business meeting, with limited times for floor debate.
Revision of the Standards would not even touch that divide.

So, this is the Biblical reason for the separation of the two denominations? Perhaps if we all took the Bible a bit more seriously than how we as sinners run our church meetings we could unite and realize that visible church unity is no small matter. One thing that's always made me ponder is what will happen when persecution does come to the church in the Western world, how long will we continue to believe that we can't be united because of how one church runs business meetings. When persecution comes, I would hope that all believers, but especially Reformed, Biblical Christians, whether they be credobaptist, paedobaptist or what have you, will decide that these other issues are small compared to what we must unite around, Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Spencer, You have a lot to learn historically. I understand your heart cry. I long for the Church to be one in mind also. I suggest you learn more history from the first and second Reformation and what brought about the Confessions. Just a recommendation. The Church has gone through the situation you described. It was called the Reformation. And it failed in some ways and was a great success in others. I hope I am not being harsh with you but you are niave.

 

[Particular Baptist]

Spencer, You have a lot to learn historically. I understand your heart cry. I long for the Church to be one in mind also. I suggest you learn more history from the first and second Reformation and what brought about the Confessions. Just a recommendation. The Church has gone through the situation you described. It was called the Reformation. And it failed in some ways and was a great success in others. I hope I am not being harsh with you but you are niave.

Are you stating that because it failed in the past that we shouldn't pursue unity among other denominations, escpecially Reformed or Calvinistic denominations? Calvin himself was one of the greatest ecumenical thinkers and yearned for the the Lutheran and Reformed branches to come together, if I even remember right he signed a modified version of the Augsburg Confession. Why was the church able to maintain so much unity the first four hundred years of it's existence and, yet, since the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries ended the way it did we now find it naive to seek the unity of the Reformed churches?

 

[Wayne]

Spencer:

I did not say that "this was the Biblical reason for the separation of the two denominations". I offered no defense for the separation of the two. The point of my earlier statement was to show that revision of the Westminster Standards would not touch on what actually, really separates the two denominations today. There is nothing about the Standards or how we hold them that separates the two.

 

[Wayne]

Are you stating that because it failed in the past that we shouldn't pursue unity among other denominations

No, he didn't say that either. Try not to read into statements things that aren't there. [I say that, trying to be helpful, not harsh or critical]

 

[P.F.]

One of the issues that is being addressed only tangentially here is the nature of Christian unity. The unity of mind of all believers is the real, lasting unity that will be enhanced in the life to come. The political unity we have (or lack) is a lesser kind of unity. It is still a very pleasant and valuable kind of unity. Nevertheless, it is logically and substantively inferior to the unity of mind. After all, we have unity of polity with hypocrites, while we have unity of mind on the Gospel with folks who cannot speak English, and consequently with whom any sort of political unity is impractical.

The political disunity among those who speak the same language is an unpleasant side-effect of commitment to doctrinal purity, combined with differing opinions. The solution is to strive to persuade one another of the truth, not to pretend that the truth can be glossed over by lowest-common-denominator creeds/confessions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Spencer, You have a lot to learn historically. I understand your heart cry. I long for the Church to be one in mind also. I suggest you learn more history from the first and second Reformation and what brought about the Confessions. Just a recommendation. The Church has gone through the situation you described. It was called the Reformation. And it failed in some ways and was a great success in others. I hope I am not being harsh with you but you are niave.

Are you stating that because it failed in the past that we shouldn't pursue unity among other denominations, escpecially Reformed or Calvinistic denominations? Calvin himself was one of the greatest ecumenical thinkers and yearned for the the Lutheran and Reformed branches to come together, if I even remember right he signed a modified version of the Augsburg Confession. Why was the church able to maintain so much unity the first four hundred years of it's existence and, yet, since the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries ended the way it did we now find it naive to seek the unity of the Reformed churches?

Know that I desire unity. It is a wonderful thing when two walk together as one. Amos 3:3 I believe that Unity and Union are two differing things though. I believe we are all in Union with Christ but we as local bodies and denominations should walk in unity. BTW, the Unity of the Church for the first 400 years is a myth. There is still One Church I believe with many differing body parts. We are all connected to the Head which is Christ.

Actually the problem is a little more difficult because Paul has warned us about those who come in and cause division. There are those who want us to be all-inclusive which is dangerous. Then they say we are being to exclusive. Some deny the authority of Scripture. Some start to pic away at the foundations slowly. Then you end up with educated men deceiving the Church and removing the landmarks that are so important.

(Rom 16:17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

(Rom 16:18) For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

[Particular Baptist]

Mr. Snyder,

Thank you for the distinction between union and unity, that is very true. But, do you feel that sometimes Protestants emphasis the idea, that the invisible is always in union because of the Headship of Christ, to the point where we use that as an excuse to be divided by so many secondary things?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

There is a difference between relaxing standards to allow for liberality and uniting various denominations that differ on very few things.

I posit this: relaxing standards is a sin.

 

[Notthemama1984]

There is a difference between relaxing standards to allow for liberality and uniting various denominations that differ on very few things.

I posit this: relaxing standards is a sin.

I agree that it would be sinful. I was thinking about putting aside adiophric differences and come together, not putting aside truth for the sake of unity.

 

[Particular Baptist]

Relaxing what standards? I'm not for relaxing the gospel, the Trinity, the essentials to the Christian faith, or the doctrines of grace. But, why would it be a sin to say to other believers 'We don't agree on such and such non-essentials, but we can still fellowship together'?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Relaxing what standards? I'm not for relaxing the gospel, the Trinity, the essentials to the Christian faith, or the doctrines of grace. But, why would it be a sin to say to other believers 'We don't agree on such and such non-essentials, but we can still fellowship together'?

Come on Spencer. You know what the topic is about. Quit obfuscating. No one is denying fellowship here from person to person or congregation to congregation.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Relaxing what standards? I'm not for relaxing the gospel, the Trinity, the essentials to the Christian faith, or the doctrines of grace. But, why would it be a sin to say to other believers 'We don't agree on such and such non-essentials, but we can still fellowship together'?

Relaxing the confessed Standards of the church, that is. In our case we are talking about the Westminster Standards. To relax these confessional standards one iota would be a sin for two reasons. 1. They are biblical. 2. The church has already confessed them corporately, and is even now confessing them.

We do not have the option or luxury to shrink back from the landmarks that our forefathers in the faith have set. We can only press forward to greater clarity. We may not draw back.

Philippians 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

Joshua 4:5-7 5 And Joshua said unto them, Pass over before the ark of the LORD your God into the midst of Jordan, and take ye up every man of you a stone upon his shoulder, according unto the number of the tribes of the children of Israel: 6 That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones? 7 Then ye shall answer them, That the waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it passed over Jordan, the waters of Jordan were cut off: and these stones shall be for a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever.

 

[Scott1]

http://www.epc.org/mediafiles/epc-book-of-order-2009-2010.pdf

EPC
Book of Church Order
Essentials of our Faith

1. We believe in one God, the sovereign
Creator and Sustainer of all things, infinitely
perfect and eternally existing in three
Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To
Him be all honor, glory and praise forever!

2. Jesus Christ, the living Word, became flesh
through His miraculous conception by the
Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. He who is
true God became true man united in one
Person forever. He died on the cross a
sacrifice for our sins according to the
Scriptures. On the third day He arose bodily
from the dead, ascended into heaven where,
at the right hand of the Majesty on High,
He now is our High Priest and Mediator.

3. The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Christ
and to apply the saving work of Christ to
our hearts. He convicts us of sin and draws
us to the Savior, indwelling our hearts. He
gives new life to us, empowers and imparts
gifts to us for service. He instructs and
guides us into all truth, and seals us for the
day of redemption.

4. Being estranged from God and condemned
by our sinfulness, our salvation is wholly
dependent upon the work of God’s free
grace. God credits His righteousness to
those who put their faith in Christ alone for
their salvation, and thereby justifies them in
His sight. Only such as are born of the Holy
Spirit and receive Jesus Christ become
children of God and heirs of eternal life.

5. The true Church is composed of all persons
who through saving faith in Jesus Christ
and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit
are united together in the body of Christ.
The Church finds her visible yet imperfect,
expression in local congregations where the
Word of God is preached in its purity and
the sacraments are administered in their
integrity, where scriptural discipline is
practiced, and where loving fellowship is
maintained. For her perfecting she awaits
the return of her Lord.

6. Jesus Christ will come again to the earth
personally, visibly, and bodily—to judge the
living and the dead, and to consummate
history and the eternal plan of God. “Even
so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 22:20)

7. The Lord Jesus Christ commands all
believers to proclaim the gospel throughout
the world and to make disciples of all
nations. Obedience to the Great
Commission requires total commitment to
“Him who loved us and gave Himself for
us.” He calls us to a life of self-denying love
and service. “For we are His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared beforehand that we
should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10)

This is not about the particular denomination. It's an illustration of the wrong assumption underlying the post topic.

Above is a minimalist Confession (without the detail of the historic Confessions) that we could all agree with.

The problem is, it is not uniquely reformed, not even uniquely broadly evangelical- it could probably by agreed by the Roman church.

The doctrines of grace are not detailed, nor covenant theology, nor the sacraments, nor polity.

Just imagine the disunifying things that could be taken alongside this (hypothetical only)

'federal vision'
new revelation outside of Scripture as an ordinary means of grace
memorial only sacraments
arminianism (at least 3 or 4 points)
dispensationalism
soul sleep
no millennial reign of Christ now
congregational polity
female dominated polity
evolution
social gospel focus of corporate worship
entertainment of self focus of worship
everyday is a sabbath, no distinction


There is no basis for any kind of systematic theology of the whole of God's Word, which I believe is one coherent whole, to be understood, taught, and defended in every communion, to the peril of those, particularly teachers of God's Word who do not do so.

It is not a right of private interpretation as is the prevalent man-centered thinking of our age.

And while representing this would unify, we undermine one of the key principles of reformed theology, taken from Scripture-

The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal unity.

And make no mistake about it, it wouldn't be long until the edges of even these most basic of statements would either be ignored or challenged.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

EPC
Book of Church Order
Essentials of our Faith

1. We believe in one God, the sovereign
Creator and Sustainer of all things, infinitely
perfect and eternally existing in three
Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To
Him be all honor, glory and praise forever!

2. Jesus Christ, the living Word, became flesh
through His miraculous conception by the
Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. He who is
true God became true man united in one
Person forever. He died on the cross a
sacrifice for our sins according to the
Scriptures. On the third day He arose bodily
from the dead, ascended into heaven where,
at the right hand of the Majesty on High,
He now is our High Priest and Mediator.

3. The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Christ
and to apply the saving work of Christ to
our hearts. He convicts us of sin and draws
us to the Savior, indwelling our hearts. He
gives new life to us, empowers and imparts
gifts to us for service. He instructs and
guides us into all truth, and seals us for the
day of redemption.

4. Being estranged from God and condemned
by our sinfulness, our salvation is wholly
dependent upon the work of God’s free
grace. God credits His righteousness to
those who put their faith in Christ alone for
their salvation, and thereby justifies them in
His sight. Only such as are born of the Holy
Spirit and receive Jesus Christ become
children of God and heirs of eternal life.

5. The true Church is composed of all persons
who through saving faith in Jesus Christ
and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit
are united together in the body of Christ.
The Church finds her visible yet imperfect,
expression in local congregations where the
Word of God is preached in its purity and
the sacraments are administered in their
integrity, where scriptural discipline is
practiced, and where loving fellowship is
maintained. For her perfecting she awaits
the return of her Lord.

6. Jesus Christ will come again to the earth
personally, visibly, and bodily—to judge the
living and the dead, and to consummate
history and the eternal plan of God. “Even
so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 22:20)

7. The Lord Jesus Christ commands all
believers to proclaim the gospel throughout
the world and to make disciples of all
nations. Obedience to the Great
Commission requires total commitment to
“Him who loved us and gave Himself for
us.” He calls us to a life of self-denying love
and service. “For we are His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared beforehand that we
should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10)

,

To quote JH Thornwell, "A slice of Independency, a dash of Quakerism, but no, no, no Presbyterianism."

 

[Austin]

Here are my 1st few thoughts on the matter:

1) Amending the confessional standards is about as wise as skating on thin ice on a warm day. Or dancing while blindfolded and drunk on the edge of a cliff. At night. Every time it has been attempted (with the exception of cutting out the parts about Erastianism and the Pope being the Antichrist) it has been a source of more trouble than it was worth. Often it has been used by wily non-confessional types (or the Devil, plain & simple) to erode the faith once delivered to the saints. Have any of us looked at the PCUSA's "Book of Confessions," or noted how its adoption was intended by the modernists to make subscription impossible?

2) In my denomination (the EPC), we have adopted the ridiculous "Modern Language Version" of the Standards. The WSC revision is has been modernized in such a way that actual memorization is well-nigh impossible. (But who, other than RTS students & a few godly folk scattered here & there still have to memorize it?) The prose is clunky, and the attempts to eliminate 17th Century verbiage is about as smooth and useful as the people who destroy the flow & rhyming of hymns in order to replace the words "Thee," "Thou," "Thy," etc with the modern 2nd person pronouns. (As if anyone REALLY has any trouble knowing what those words mean!) The EPC's WCF revision has two massive flaws. One is that it includes the wretched additional chapters (adopted around the turn of the 20th Century by the UPCUSA & PCUS) on "The Love of God and Missions" and "Of the Holy Spirit." Now, while someone may say that the Standards needed chapters on these things, surely every one of the Divines is rotating in his grave knowing that these chapters have introduced an Amyraldianism which runs counter to the rest of the WCF. Further, who seriously believes that the WCF needed a chapter on evangelism? what, like the Divines, or any real Christian, could have fully subscribed and then coldly rejected Christ's Great Commission? Whatever. The other error is found in ch.2, where it states that God has no "emotions." The intent was to modernize the word "passions" (as if the word needed modernization). But they made a mistake. I asked one of the guys on the team that did it (in the 1970s, before the EPC existed) why they made this change. His answer: "It was late and we missed it in the editing process." (!!!!) Now I use this as a shibboleth to see if candidates have actually read the EPC version that they are subscribing to. Almost none notice it. (What does that say about their dedication to truth?)

3) As Scott has so aptly stated, the issue at hand is one of Church Discipline. Let your 'yea' be 'yea' and your 'nay' be 'nay.' Do not bear false witness. if you are unable, in faith, to subscribe to the Standards, or if you are unwilling to state exceptions for some reason, then go join the Evangelical Free Church or some other confession-free denomination. There is nothing that sends me into apoplexy more than candidates for ordination or transfer who state no exceptions (or state too few), and then prove through their exams that they are liars, knaves, or fools. If you aren't down with six-day creation, say so, for God's sake. If you want to take your kids to Disneyland on the Sabbath Day, then state a freaking exception! If, in your unparalleled wisdom, have concluded that Scofield and Chafer were right, THEN STATE A [Expeletive deleted] EXCEPTION!

On the other hand, what comes in a close second is these sons of Belial who come forward stating exceptions to things that NO ONE with a modicum of understanding of the Standards would EVER state. For instance, why do I see occasional exceptions against the WCF's position regarding monastic vows? What the h*** is that? I have been told to my face by recently approved candidates that they've never read the WLC or WSC. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Some have said that they never studied any but the WCF, and that in a cursory fashion. (I am convinced from examinations that many of these who say that they have studied in such a cursory fashion are liars. They just don't want to get in trouble. But when you cannot enunciate the basic doctrines of Reformed soteriology, sacramentology, or the Covenant, then you have no clue what's in the Standards.)

4) With the state of the Church as it is, even in our Reformed circles, are these morons, liars, false-professors, covenant breakers, etc the kinds of people we want voting in a General Assembly about such matters? Come on.

5) RE: exceptions -- The Adopting Act of 1729 is quite clear. If a minister-candidate has some disagreement with the Standards, he must state his exceptions in full. After this, the presbytery must act specifically to approve or disapprove each stated exception. If the exception is denied, but the presbytery believes that the minister is still acceptable, then the Presbytery must determine if the minister's view may be taught, or if he must teach the Church's position. Period. If he violates this rule, or exhibits through his teaching, preaching, or practice that he has differences with the Standards that he has not stated, then he must be disciplined. Period. (Examples of exceptions EPC presbyteries have disallowed while approving the minister are paedo-communion and re-baptism. These may not be practiced, taught, or allowed by any minister in the presbyteries that have disallowed the exceptions, though the ministers may serve if they are in full submission.)

6) Final thought: one of the main issues involved in this is that, for the most part, Presbyterians are no longer catholic. Now, I don't mean that we aren't Roman. We haven't been Roman since the Reformation. But we are supposed to be catholic. We are universal Christians. As such, we are to hold the Patristic standard that if we claim to have God as our Father, than we have the Church as our mother. And if the Church, acting in the Name of the Bridegroom & holding the keys of the Kingdom, has determined through the courts of the Church that our teaching standard is "x," then as those who are ordained to serve in humility and submission, we must submit, in humility, to the teaching authority of the Lord Jesus, Who acts to govern His Church through the presbyters acting under the power of jurisdiction. If we don't like it, then we have Luther's choice: submit until we are called to submit to heresy, and then raise the standard of Reformation.

The Confessional standards of the Church are always "our confession" before they are "my confession," at least for ordained ministers, elders, and deacons. We take a holy vow before God and His Church to submit, and to teach accordingly. To violate that vow is to commit the sin of Achan. It is to be a covenant-breaker, an idolator of self. It is to set the self up against the Church of God, and is contempt of the established order of the same.

"Let not many of you desire to be teachers, knowing that you will face a harsher judgment."

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Here are my 1st few thoughts on the matter:

1) Amending the confessional standards is about as wise as skating on thin ice on a warm day. Or dancing while blindfolded and drunk on the edge of a cliff. At night. Every time it has been attempted (with the exception of cutting out the parts about Erastianism and the Pope being the Antichrist) it has been a source of more trouble than it was worth. Often it has been used by wily non-confessional types (or the Devil, plain & simple) to erode the faith once delivered to the saints. Have any of us looked at the PCUSA's "Book of Confessions," or noted how its adoption was intended by the modernists to make subscription impossible?

2) In my denomination (the EPC), we have adopted the ridiculous "Modern Language Version" of the Standards. The WSC revision is has been modernized in such a way that actual memorization is well-nigh impossible. (But who, other than RTS students & a few godly folk scattered here & there still have to memorize it?) The prose is clunky, and the attempts to eliminate 17th Century verbiage is about as smooth and useful as the people who destroy the flow & rhyming of hymns in order to replace the words "Thee," "Thou," "Thy," etc with the modern 2nd person pronouns. (As if anyone REALLY has any trouble knowing what those words mean!) The EPC's WCF revision has two massive flaws. One is that it includes the wretched additional chapters (adopted around the turn of the 20th Century by the UPCUSA & PCUS) on "The Love of God and Missions" and "Of the Holy Spirit." Now, while someone may say that the Standards needed chapters on these things, surely every one of the Divines is rotating in his grave knowing that these chapters have introduced an Amyraldianism which runs counter to the rest of the WCF. Further, who seriously believes that the WCF needed a chapter on evangelism? what, like the Divines, or any real Christian, could have fully subscribed and then coldly rejected Christ's Great Commission? Whatever. The other error is found in ch.2, where it states that God has no "emotions." The intent was to modernize the word "passions" (as if the word needed modernization). But they made a mistake. I asked one of the guys on the team that did it (in the 1970s, before the EPC existed) why they made this change. His answer: "It was late and we missed it in the editing process." (!!!!) Now I use this as a shibboleth to see if candidates have actually read the EPC version that they are subscribing to. Almost none notice it. (What does that say about their dedication to truth?)

3) As Scott has so aptly stated, the issue at hand is one of Church Discipline. Let your 'yea' be 'yea' and your 'nay' be 'nay.' Do not bear false witness. if you are unable, in faith, to subscribe to the Standards, or if you are unwilling to state exceptions for some reason, then go join the Evangelical Free Church or some other confession-free denomination. There is nothing that sends me into apoplexy more than candidates for ordination or transfer who state no exceptions (or state too few), and then prove through their exams that they are liars, knaves, or fools. If you aren't down with six-day creation, say so, for God's sake. If you want to take your kids to Disneyland on the Sabbath Day, then state a freaking exception! If, in your unparalleled wisdom, have concluded that Scofield and Chafer were right, THEN STATE A DAMNED EXCEPTION!

On the other hand, what comes in a close second is these sons of Belial who come forward stating exceptions to things that NO ONE with a modicum of understanding of the Standards would EVER state. For instance, why do I see occasional exceptions against the WCF's position regarding monastic vows? What the h*** is that? I have been told to my face by recently approved candidates that they've never read the WLC or WSC. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Some have said that they never studied any but the WCF, and that in a cursory fashion. (I am convinced from examinations that many of these who say that they have studied in such a cursory fashion are liars. They just don't want to get in trouble. But when you cannot enunciate the basic doctrines of Reformed soteriology, sacramentology, or the Covenant, then you have no clue what's in the Standards.)

4) With the state of the Church as it is, even in our Reformed circles, are these morons, liars, false-professors, covenant breakers, etc the kinds of people we want voting in a General Assembly about such matters? Come on.

5) RE: exceptions -- The Adopting Act of 1729 is quite clear. If a minister-candidate has some disagreement with the Standards, he must state his exceptions in full. After this, the presbytery must act specifically to approve or disapprove each stated exception. If the exception is denied, but the presbytery believes that the minister is still acceptable, then the Presbytery must determine if the minister's view may be taught, or if he must teach the Church's position. Period. If he violates this rule, or exhibits through his teaching, preaching, or practice that he has differences with the Standards that he has not stated, then he must be disciplined. Period. (Examples of exceptions EPC presbyteries have disallowed while approving the minister are paedo-communion and re-baptism. These may not be practiced, taught, or allowed by any minister in the presbyteries that have disallowed the exceptions, though the ministers may serve if they are in full submission.)

6) Final thought: one of the main issues involved in this is that, for the most part, Presbyterians are no longer catholic. Now, I don't mean that we aren't Roman. We haven't been Roman since the Reformation. But we are supposed to be catholic. We are universal Christians. As such, we are to hold the Patristic standard that if we claim to have God as our Father, than we have the Church as our mother. And if the Church, acting in the Name of the Bridegroom & holding the keys of the Kingdom, has determined through the courts of the Church that our teaching standard is "x," then as those who are ordained to serve in humility and submission, we must submit, in humility, to the teaching authority of the Lord Jesus, Who acts to govern His Church through the presbyters acting under the power of jurisdiction. If we don't like it, then we have Luther's choice: submit until we are called to submit to heresy, and then raise the standard of Reformation.

The Confessional standards of the Church are always "our confession" before they are "my confession," at least for ordained ministers, elders, and deacons. We take a holy vow before God and His Church to submit, and to teach accordingly. To violate that vow is to commit the sin of Achan. It is to be a covenant-breaker, an idolator of self. It is to set the self up against the Church of God, and is contempt of the established order of the same.

"Let not many of you desire to be teachers, knowing that you will face a harsher judgment."

Good words, Austin, except for the bit about Erastianism. The original confession already excluded Erasrianism. There was not a trace in there.

 

[drphillips1]

Most people that have commented on this thread seem to openly admit that many churches/pastors/elders of their own denomination do not fully adhere, nor believe the doctrines in the WCF and its connected documents. So my question then is, why change the document that has solidified, and unified the reformed faith for the last 300 years? It is obvious that the standards have not changed, we as a body, have allowed the "Jacob Harminsens" of the world to sneakily enter their heresies into our churches. So instead of simply changing our foundation, why not just get rid of the termites?

 

[py3ak]

[Moderator]Rev. Olive, let me thank you for the forceful and vigorous post. I understand your disgust and I agree with your exhortation.

But may I also recommend that you revise some of the stronger language in your post? Judging from the context, you are using terms as expletives, not really in their native meaning, and we don't encourage the use of expletives on the board.[/Moderator]

Here are my 1st few thoughts on the matter:

1) Amending the confessional standards is about as wise as skating on thin ice on a warm day. Or dancing while blindfolded and drunk on the edge of a cliff. At night. Every time it has been attempted (with the exception of cutting out the parts about Erastianism and the Pope being the Antichrist) it has been a source of more trouble than it was worth. Often it has been used by wily non-confessional types (or the Devil, plain & simple) to erode the faith once delivered to the saints. Have any of us looked at the PCUSA's "Book of Confessions," or noted how its adoption was intended by the modernists to make subscription impossible?

2) In my denomination (the EPC), we have adopted the ridiculous "Modern Language Version" of the Standards. The WSC revision is has been modernized in such a way that actual memorization is well-nigh impossible. (But who, other than RTS students & a few godly folk scattered here & there still have to memorize it?) The prose is clunky, and the attempts to eliminate 17th Century verbiage is about as smooth and useful as the people who destroy the flow & rhyming of hymns in order to replace the words "Thee," "Thou," "Thy," etc with the modern 2nd person pronouns. (As if anyone REALLY has any trouble knowing what those words mean!) The EPC's WCF revision has two massive flaws. One is that it includes the wretched additional chapters (adopted around the turn of the 20th Century by the UPCUSA & PCUS) on "The Love of God and Missions" and "Of the Holy Spirit." Now, while someone may say that the Standards needed chapters on these things, surely every one of the Divines is rotating in his grave knowing that these chapters have introduced an Amyraldianism which runs counter to the rest of the WCF. Further, who seriously believes that the WCF needed a chapter on evangelism? what, like the Divines, or any real Christian, could have fully subscribed and then coldly rejected Christ's Great Commission? Whatever. The other error is found in ch.2, where it states that God has no "emotions." The intent was to modernize the word "passions" (as if the word needed modernization). But they made a mistake. I asked one of the guys on the team that did it (in the 1970s, before the EPC existed) why they made this change. His answer: "It was late and we missed it in the editing process." (!!!!) Now I use this as a shibboleth to see if candidates have actually read the EPC version that they are subscribing to. Almost none notice it. (What does that say about their dedication to truth?)

3) As Scott has so aptly stated, the issue at hand is one of Church Discipline. Let your 'yea' be 'yea' and your 'nay' be 'nay.' Do not bear false witness. if you are unable, in faith, to subscribe to the Standards, or if you are unwilling to state exceptions for some reason, then go join the Evangelical Free Church or some other confession-free denomination. There is nothing that sends me into apoplexy more than candidates for ordination or transfer who state no exceptions (or state too few), and then prove through their exams that they are liars, knaves, or fools. If you aren't down with six-day creation, say so, for God's sake. If you want to take your kids to Disneyland on the Sabbath Day, then state a freaking exception! If, in your unparalleled wisdom, have concluded that Scofield and Chafer were right, THEN STATE A DAMNED EXCEPTION!

On the other hand, what comes in a close second is these sons of Belial who come forward stating exceptions to things that NO ONE with a modicum of understanding of the Standards would EVER state. For instance, why do I see occasional exceptions against the WCF's position regarding monastic vows? What the h*** is that? I have been told to my face by recently approved candidates that they've never read the WLC or WSC. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Some have said that they never studied any but the WCF, and that in a cursory fashion. (I am convinced from examinations that many of these who say that they have studied in such a cursory fashion are liars. They just don't want to get in trouble. But when you cannot enunciate the basic doctrines of Reformed soteriology, sacramentology, or the Covenant, then you have no clue what's in the Standards.)

4) With the state of the Church as it is, even in our Reformed circles, are these morons, liars, false-professors, covenant breakers, etc the kinds of people we want voting in a General Assembly about such matters? Come on.

5) RE: exceptions -- The Adopting Act of 1729 is quite clear. If a minister-candidate has some disagreement with the Standards, he must state his exceptions in full. After this, the presbytery must act specifically to approve or disapprove each stated exception. If the exception is denied, but the presbytery believes that the minister is still acceptable, then the Presbytery must determine if the minister's view may be taught, or if he must teach the Church's position. Period. If he violates this rule, or exhibits through his teaching, preaching, or practice that he has differences with the Standards that he has not stated, then he must be disciplined. Period. (Examples of exceptions EPC presbyteries have disallowed while approving the minister are paedo-communion and re-baptism. These may not be practiced, taught, or allowed by any minister in the presbyteries that have disallowed the exceptions, though the ministers may serve if they are in full submission.)

6) Final thought: one of the main issues involved in this is that, for the most part, Presbyterians are no longer catholic. Now, I don't mean that we aren't Roman. We haven't been Roman since the Reformation. But we are supposed to be catholic. We are universal Christians. As such, we are to hold the Patristic standard that if we claim to have God as our Father, than we have the Church as our mother. And if the Church, acting in the Name of the Bridegroom & holding the keys of the Kingdom, has determined through the courts of the Church that our teaching standard is "x," then as those who are ordained to serve in humility and submission, we must submit, in humility, to the teaching authority of the Lord Jesus, Who acts to govern His Church through the presbyters acting under the power of jurisdiction. If we don't like it, then we have Luther's choice: submit until we are called to submit to heresy, and then raise the standard of Reformation.

The Confessional standards of the Church are always "our confession" before they are "my confession," at least for ordained ministers, elders, and deacons. We take a holy vow before God and His Church to submit, and to teach accordingly. To violate that vow is to commit the sin of Achan. It is to be a covenant-breaker, an idolator of self. It is to set the self up against the Church of God, and is contempt of the established order of the same.

"Let not many of you desire to be teachers, knowing that you will face a harsher judgment."

 

[beej6]

(rant on)

In my (apparently minority position of) support for a new confession, nowhere did I say the standards involved should be "broadened."

I daresay the Westminster Divines would be shocked to find that we were still relying on their excellent work some 400 odd years later. Or perhaps flattered.

Rev. Stellman must be aware that the OPC and PCA have attempted to unite several times without much success. I daresay that if it were allowed to have either the WCF or 3FU as secondary standards, that there would be more chance the OPC and URCNA would unite. But that's simply this poor layman's view of recent church history. I actually would support Prof. Godfrey's proposal for NAPARC to function as a sort of super-Synod, that NAPARC members would unite as one church. Perhaps at that level a new, complementary, modern confession could be written. If not, any unity is simply an illusion anyway.

(rant off)

 

[Kaalvenist]

Amending the confessional standards is about as wise as skating on thin ice on a warm day. Or dancing while blindfolded and drunk on the edge of a cliff. At night.

This one probably ought to be framed.