Which confession do you subscribe to?

[Saiph]

I like the 39 Articles.

Why did you leave out Ausburg ? and Smalcald ?

 

[doonziticus]

1789 Westminster Confession

Although I am not quite sure that the pope isn't the antichrist.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Saiph
I like the 39 Articles.

Why did you leave out Ausburg ? and Smalcald ?

That is because the board was created to function as a distinctly Reformed community. Now, as is seen by the nature and great amount of discussion and debate that occurs here, it is clear that it is not meant to be monolithic on all matters of course, but a united foundational mindset is nonetheless necessary for the board's particular purpose - which is the very reason there are several confessions to which members may subscribe.

Even so, Lutheranism has almost always historically differed with issues on which all other Reformed confessions agree, such as the physical nature of the Supper, and even more, the relationship between Law and Gospel, and perhaps most significantly, the doctrines of grace ever since Melanchthon succeeded Luther. Hence, the board's ownership has seen fit from the outset to make that one of the places at which the line is drawn.

P. S. Also, while there are of course many points in the Reformed confessions which are not fully or properly understood by all who verbally subscribe to them, and while indeed there may therefore be some Lutherans who are actually closer to the Reformed mindset than many who externally espouse the Reformed confessions, to officially add the Lutheran confessions into the picture would only compound and multiply that potential problem, particularly in light of the masses of verbally-espoused Lutherans who would not actually understand either the Lutheran or Reformed theology.

 

[Saiph]

So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Saiph
So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.

What do you mean by "reformed"?

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Saiph
So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.

What do you mean by "reformed"?

5 solas.

 

[Arch2k]

People have different definitions of "reformed." See What does it mean to be reformed?

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by Saiph
So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.

You might get by with the 39 Articles but Lutherans would certainly not consider their Book of Concord "Reformed" (though probably Reformational).

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by Saiph
So Angilcan and Lutheran confessions are not reformed ? I hope you are joking.

You might get by with the 39 Articles but Lutherans would certainly not consider their Book of Concord "Reformed" (though probably Reformational).

 

[yeutter]

I subscribe to the 39 Articles; but I have no reservations with the Heidelberg Catechism.

 

[yeutter]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Saiph
I like the 39 Articles.

Why did you leave out Ausburg ? and Smalcald ?

That is because the board was created to function as a distinctly Reformed community. Now, as is seen by the nature and great amount of discussion and debate that occurs here, it is clear that it is not meant to be monolithic on all matters of course, but a united foundational mindset is nonetheless necessary for the board's particular purpose - which is the very reason there are several confessions to which members may subscribe.

Even so, Lutheranism has almost always historically differed with issues on which all other Reformed confessions agree, such as the physical nature of the Supper, and even more, the relationship between Law and Gospel, and perhaps most significantly, the doctrines of grace ever since Melanchthon succeeded Luther. Hence, the board's ownership has seen fit from the outset to make that one of the places at which the line is drawn....

The intent of Melanchthon's 1540 revision of the Augsburg was to reform the confession so that those of a Refromed bent could subscribe. Calvin did.

Sadly I do not think the 1540 is available in English translation.

 

[yeutter]

Comparison of Westminster and 3 Forms of Unity

A nice untechnical but biased comparison of the Westminster and Continental Reformed Three Forms of Unity can be found at:

http://www.prca.org/articles/article_8.html

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by yeutter
The intent of Melanchthon's 1540 revision of the Augsburg was to reform the confession so that those of a Refromed bent could subscribe. Calvin did.

Sadly I do not think the 1540 is available in English translation.

Do you have more information on the 1540 Augsburg revision and its subscribers or can you point me to some resources on the subject?

 

[VanVos]

Originally posted by pastorway
I hold to the First London Baptist Confession (1646) with no exceptions and also the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) with a few exceptions.

Phillip

 

[yeutter]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by yeutter
The intent of Melanchthon's 1540 revision of the Augsburg was to reform the confession so that those of a Refromed bent could subscribe. Calvin did.

Sadly I do not think the 1540 is available in English translation.

Do you have more information on the 1540 Augsburg revision and its subscribers or can you point me to some resources on the subject?

Two articles which may be helpful on this topic are:

http://www.geocities.com/r_e_pot/papers/calvin.html

http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/boc/intros/intro04.txt

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by yeutter

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by yeutter
The intent of Melanchthon's 1540 revision of the Augsburg was to reform the confession so that those of a Refromed bent could subscribe. Calvin did.

Sadly I do not think the 1540 is available in English translation.

Do you have more information on the 1540 Augsburg revision and its subscribers or can you point me to some resources on the subject?

Two articles which may be helpful on this topic are:

http://www.geocities.com/r_e_pot/papers/calvin.html

http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/boc/intros/intro04.txt

Thanks! That is very helpful. It opens for me new insights into Calvin's relationship with Melanchthon and the Lutherans.

I also found this section on the Variata (c. 1540) and the Invariata (1530) from Schaff's Creeds of Christendom helpful.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF

 

[etexas]

39 Articles, the Three Great Creeds , The Major Church Councils.

 

[MrMerlin777]

I am in agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds of the church and am in essential agreement with most all of the great confessions. I see the usefullness of them all including the 39 articles. I held at one time most closely to the Baptistic confessions but am now a Paedobaptist. I am probably most in line with the WCF though my views on the Sabbath are more continental.

 

[Theoretical]

I am in agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds of the church and am in essential agreement with most all of the great confessions. I see the usefullness of them all including the 39 articles. I held at one time most closely to the Baptistic confessions but am now a Paedobaptist. I am probably most in line with the WCF though my views on the Sabbath are more continental.

I strictly subscribe to the Canons of Dordt and strongly affirm the Westminster Confession, with EP and the Civil Magistrate being my only doctrinal issues, though the latter one may not ever be settled totally in my mind. As it is now, I'd gladly go to an EP church and indeed would probably prefer it, I'm just not sure if it's an absolute requirement. As to the Civil Magistrate, I see enough strong points on both sides, that I'd probably be willing to conform to 1646, though 1789 is my preference.

I'm studying Heidelberg and the Belgic Confession as well.

 

[MrMerlin777]

I am in agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds of the church and am in essential agreement with most all of the great confessions. I see the usefullness of them all including the 39 articles. I held at one time most closely to the Baptistic confessions but am now a Paedobaptist. I am probably most in line with the WCF though my views on the Sabbath are more continental.

I must add to clarify that (as I'm sure we all agree) I hold these standards to be SUBORDINANT to the Holy Writ. Only the Holy Scriptures have the final authority, where any statements of faith or confessions conflict (if they do) they must be ammended. That is why I say I'm in essential agreement with the confessions. I could not call myself a "strict subscriptionist" in the proper sense of that term.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

WCF 1789, strict.

 

[Irishcat922]

1789

 

[kvanlaan]

I know this is an old thread, but there are more than just a couple of 3 Forms of Unity Heidelbergers on the boards!

Belgic Confession
Canons of Dordt
Heidelberg Catechism

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I am likeminded with the confessions expressed in the 1789 Westminster Confession of Faith with one exception and that is I believe the office of Pope is indeed the office of the “Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”

(would that be considered an exception since it is not stated in the 1789 version?)

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I am likeminded with the confessions expressed in the 1789 Westminster Confession of Faith with one exception and that is I believe the office of Pope is indeed the office of the “Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”

(would that be considered an exception since it is not stated in the 1789 version?)

The 1789 WCF states that the Pope is Antichrist. That was not removed from the American WCF until 1903.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

The 1789 WCF states that the Pope is Antichrist. That was not removed from the American WCF until 1903.

Not according to a link you gave to the tabular comparisson between the 1646 and the 1789 (see attached).

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Attachment is too big, try this link.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

The 1789 WCF states that the Pope is Antichrist. That was not removed from the American WCF until 1903.

Nevermind Andrew, I see now that that link is not really a comparrisson between the 1646 and 1789. It is comparisson betwen the 1646 and the OPC standard (which I guess is 1903).

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Here are my notes on this change.


WCF 25:6 There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ; n nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdi*tion, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.o

BP (1938); PCUSA (1903); PLAN: “The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ.” PCUS (1939) “The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is without warrant in fact or in Scripture, even anti-Christian, a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ.” Both versions are in BOFC. OPC (1936) and PCA (1973) omit everything after “be head thereof.” ARP (1976): “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can mere man in any sense be the head thereof.”