Who controls whom? The confessions or the churches

[Pergamum]

Who controls who?

The Reformed Churches got together and wrote the WCF, and the Reformed Baptists wrote the 1689 later (based on the WCF). These existing bodies invented these confessions and the confessions were a product of these churches.

Now, churches are often a product shaped by these confessions.

Which is subordinate to the other?

In 1788 the Presbyterians revised the WCF. Every so often people take exceptions to the WCF, desire to update it, or put it into "modern" language. Is this wrong or right, and why?

At the writing of the confessions those that were reformed wrote their beliefs down and this was put into the Confession. They defined what the reformed faith was. But now the confession defines what the reformed faith is. Thus, the reformed faith is fixed at a moment in time.

How does this aquare with the battle cry of "Always reforming"?

What happens if a large body of the Reformed desire to revise the Confesssion again? What if 99% of the people hold to the 1788 revised version of the WCF - would they be more reformed than those who hold to the original WCF, or would those that hold to the original be "more reformed"?

 

[Leslie]

It seems that the churches should control the confessions and 'sola scriptura' should control both. It always irks me how preachers can spout 'sola scriptura' and then turn around and "prove" this or that thing from the confessions. With listening to some church history tapes, even the venerable John Knox who was an outstanding proponent of 'sola scriptura' went WAY beyond the scriptures in outlining the relationship of the civil government to the church and the relationship of both to God. Perhaps the confessions as well as church fathers would be more useful if those who cite these writings make it clear that "this is our understanding at this time, of the gist of the scriptural teaching regarding this issue". Otherwise we end of with de facto Catholicism, a new body of tradition as a second source of infallibile revelation. Logically, one has to do this because the confessions themselves claim the scriptures only as divine revelation. Thus they themselves deny that they are on the same level.

 

[Poimen]

The Reformed churches voluntary submitted (subscribed) to the confessions to express their unity in Christ to Rome and the civil government. Thus the confessions control the churches only insofar as they submit to the teachings therein. After all there are many Reformed denominations and congregations who could care less about their ecclesiastical symbols and history.

The phrase in its entirety reads:

ecclesia reformata semper reformanda which means 'the Church reformed and always reforming'

When the Reformers reformed the church they did not do away with the sacraments, godly and holy worship, nor the central doctrines of the Christian faith. They reformed the church meaning that they sought to purify it of extraneous elements that obstructed the clear preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments.

In other words there was no novelty based upon a desire to change things for the sake of changing. They brought the Christian faith back to the scriptures particularly back to the purity of the Early Church.

The Reformed confessions, like other ecclesiastical symbols, sought to bring unity amongst disunity and teach the basic doctrines of scripture. If the modern Reformed church wishes to change or amend them this should be done on the basis of the impurity of the statements therein but not to reinvent the wheel.

 

[JOwen]

The term "always reforming" is a static phrase as it pertains to its goal, which is a re-formation of the original. In battle, to re-form a line was to collapse to the original starting point of the axiom. In the same way, to say we are "always reforming", means we are constantly analyzing our current position with the direct focus of the original, and upon discovery of a tangential line, we collapse back to the original(The Word, Early Church, etc) . It does not mean new truth, but reforming the one truth, once given. There is a misconception in some (I do not mean you), that seems to believe that "always reforming", means changing the compass. This was never the intent of "always reforming".
The reason we do not constantly come up with our own confessions of faith is that most of us can put our signature on the one we posses already (WCF, 3 Forms, Second London, Savoy, etc). No need to reinvent the wheel. My Church is not subordinate to the confessions but the Word of God, summarily codified in the 3 Forms of Unity. The Confession are subordinate to the Word, and we also. Truth is fixed in time, it is called the cannon. Yet we drift into liberalism, modernity, idolatry, etc, so we must be "always reforming." I hope this helps.

 

[Poimen]

Does 'always reforming' mean that our doctrine is or should always be open to revision or something else?

In other words is there anything in the church's teaching that is 'up for grabs'? The divinity of Christ? The atonement? etc.

 

[Herald]

Wow. Pergy, where to start first? Let me try to tackle your comments one by one.

The Reformed Churches got together and wrote the WCF, and the Reformed Baptists wrote the 1689 later (based on the WCF).

I will allow a Presbyterian to defend their own confession. The 1689 LBC's relationship to the WCF is explained in the preface of the confession:

and also when we observed that those last mentioned did in their Confessions (for reasons which seemed of weight both to themselves and others) choose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with the former in sense concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed, but also for the most part without any variation of the terms, we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both in these articles (which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine are the same with theirs; and this we did the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion, as also with many others whose orthodox Confessions have been published to the world on the behalf of the Protestant in diverse nations and cities. And also to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the Holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring, before God, angels, and men, our hearty agreement with them in that wholesome Protestant doctrine which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures, they have asserted. Some things, indeed, are in some places added, some terms omitted, and some few changed; but these alterations are of that nature as that we need not doubt any charge or suspicion of unsoundness in the faith from any of our brethren upon the account of them.

The framers of the 1689 LBC sought to maintain an almost word for word unity in those areas in which both agreed. Church polity and believers only baptism being the main areas of departure, there was no need to reword areas in which there was complete agreement.

The English Baptists of the 17th century were not referred to as "Reformed Baptists." There were two predominant divisions of Baptist in 17th century England: the Strict (Particular Baptists) and the General Baptists. The Strict Baptists were known for their Calvinism while the General Baptists would fit nicely into what we call "four pointers." The term "Reformed Baptist" took hold in the last century.

Now, churches are often a product shaped by these confessions.

Which is subordinate to the other?

The church is established by God and made up of all those who have come to faith in Christ. The church, while paid for in blood, is grounded upon the word of God. The confessions are a commentary on scripture and Christian practice. The church is accountable to God, not the confessions. The confessions are accountable to scripture (if it is possible to assign accountability to a document).

In 1788 the Presbyterians revised the WCF. Every so often people take exceptions to the WCF, desire to update it, or put it into "modern" language. Is this wrong or right, and why?

The confessions are not infallible, therefore they are not beyond correction if they are proven to be inaccurate or in error. But before an addition, correction or omission is made, the burden of proof is on those who would offer such changes. They would need to prove to the church corporate that the confessions err. One may ask, "Why should the confessions be afforded such status as to be proven deficient?" Consider that the 1689 LBC and the WCF offer commentary on the most essential of Christian doctrines. The Christian faith is dependent on these doctrines since they operate together in harmony.

At the writing of the confessions those that were reformed wrote their beliefs down and this was put into the Confession. They defined what the reformed faith was. But now the confession defines what the reformed faith is. Thus, the reformed faith is fixed at a moment in time.

How does this aquare with the battle cry of "Always reforming"?

There is always a danger of the fox being put in charge of the hen house. But go back to my previous paragraph. If charges can be brought against any of the major confessions that are deficient, bring them forth. Let them be discussed and debated with scripture as the arbiter. But whereas the confessions were assembled by many men over a period of time, let any challenges be tested in a like manner so that there not be any rush to change sound doctrine.

Semper Reformanda is not always about uncovering new truth but in changing our own understanding and behaviors to be more biblical.

Pergy, I think your last paragraph is adequately explained above.

 

[JOwen]

Always reforming thus means the same thing as back to the Bible?

yep!

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think the relationship between church and confession is somewhat symbiotic. For the confession to have any real meaning then it must have some authority in the church. Yet for the confession to serve as a statement of what is believed and taught and considered to be acceptable, then the church must have some authority over what is actually stated in the confession.

A problem, as I see it, is that the Confession is venerated as an historical document to the point that we recoil in horrified shock at the proposition of altering the content therein even though in many respects the Confession does NOT accurately reflect what is believed, taught, or considered acceptable in the churches who supposedly subscribe to it.

I know some here see the answer being to simply enforce strict subscription to the Confession, but let’s face it: in terms of that actually happening, that idea is nothing less than wishful thinking when dealing with a denomination of more than a handful of congregations.

I really think that the Confessional statements of a given body need to have authority, but at the same time they must reflect what is actually believed. If they don’t reflect what is believed and being taught, then they aren’t really – truly – the statements of belief for the church.

The Confessional statements should have authority in that the churches and their elders should be required to conform to them. BUT, the churches should rethink their statements when the overwhelming majority doesn’t believe what is actually in the Confession. For example, let’s take the issue of the Lord’s Day. (Though for illustrative purposes I could have used a huge number of other issues!) Ok, I don’t know percentages, but I’m guessing that the majority take exception to the Standards in regards to the 4th Commandment. Our denomination allows these exceptions… indeed, I’ve heard of presbyteries that don’t even see the need for an exception to be declared when the candidate expresses views that are basically “evangelical.” So for the church as a whole to say, “We believe thus (what was written in the Standards over 300 years ago),” when it doesn’t, is essentially a lie. The church should state what IS believed and allow what IS taught to serve as the basis of authority and practice to direct and guide the church.

Now, some may think, “What you’re calling for is for a continually changing document that will have no authority because we’ll just change it whenever we want.” But I’m not calling for us to change things on a whim, or to rewrite the Confession just because a few people don’t agree with what is in it. I’m talking about what the course of action should be when there has been a wholesale shift in what is believed and taught by the vast majority of congregations and elders in our fellowship.

I for one am not satisfied with the status quo practice of saying “We receive the Westminster Standards as the confessional statements of our Church,” and yet we allow exceptions to all but a few of the most distinctively Reformed doctrines. Professing to confess a statement of faith which does not reflect what is really believed is mere traditionalism.

 

[JBaldwin]

I like what my pastor said this morning. The WCF can always be amended, but the Word of God does not change, so the confessions will always bow the knee to the Word of God.

 

[vagabond]

I love the confessions, and reading and studying them is a pleasure. But I like what John Frame said about confessions, though he holds them in high regard:

"I do believe there is a danger in the evangelical churches of what I would call traditionalism. In traditionalism, the evangelical or Reformed faith is defined according to its history, in doctrine, worship, evangelism, and church life. And those who differ from those traditions, even on the basis of biblical arguments, are excluded. I’ve written a couple of articles recently on this subject. One is called “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism” which was published in the WTJ 1997 and also as an Appendix in my book Contemporary Worship Music: a Biblical Defense. In a situation like this, it is especially important that students become aware of what Scripture says on these matters and, equally importantly, what Scripture doesn’t say. It is only by means of careful exegesis that we will have a firm basis to distinguish which traditions are grounded in God’s Word and which ones are not. And, as with Luther and Calvin, it is important for us to maintain a critical stance toward the traditions of the church so we may have the freedom to apply the biblical principles in the fullest possible way to contemporary life and ministry.

"I look forward to the time when God will equip his church to write new confessions. The Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries are wonderful documents that have served the church well. But we need confessions that speak to the issues of our own time: abortion, postmodern ideology, egalitarianism, new spiritualities, ecumenism, the gifts of the Spirit, common grace, the precise role of the Mosaic law, the status of non-Christian religions, the obligation of Christians to the poor, the nature of worship, biblical standards for missions and evangelism, and, indeed, the nature of confessional subscription. We need confessions also that can state the old Reformed and biblical doctrines in contemporary language and support those doctrines with the biblical scholarship that has developed over the last 400 years. Perhaps we are not ready yet to write new confessions, granted the spiritual immaturity of the contemporary church and the proliferation of denominational division. But if we are ever to reach the point at which new confessions can be written, we need to train pastors and teachers for the church who are able to develop doctrinal formulations from the Word of God itself. And we need to graduate students who understand that the 16th and 17th century confessions are not the final word, that there is much more that God calls us to say to the church and to the world. "

This is from My Use of the Reformed Confessions. Used by permission.

To clarify (see post below), Frame doesn't attack the Confessions in his call for renewal, but he does call for an intelligent acceptance rather than a blind one (in other words, a consideration of each tradition, comparing the confession with Scripture). In addition, in his hope for a new confession, Frame isn't saying the old ones are bad; he merely points out that there are more issues that should be addressed.

 

[Herald]

MODERATOR HAT ON

While the confessions are not inspired and not on par with scripture, nevertheless they are a tested and tried summary of the faith. I'll allow this thread to continue but I want to go on record (just in case) that the confessions are not to be attacked, directly or obliquely. I am not saying that anyone in this thread is leaning in that direction but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Carry on everyone.
MODERATOR HAT OFF

 

[py3ak]

In actual practice, of course the churches control the confessions. Why? Because the churches can refuse to prosecute confessional violations, and by censuring or not censuring, etc., they determine what parts of the confession are actually binding.

But as a matter of historical identification, the confessions set a standard that churches are not free to ignore. I think we would all agree that it would be absurd for a church that practiced paedo-baptism to call itself a baptist church. Not because paedobaptists don't have a right to the use of the term "baptist", but because historically "baptist" has been used almost as shorthand for "antipaedobaptist".

 

[vagabond]

My last post seemed like a tangent, but it was showing Frame's point that the churches submit the confessions (and thus themselves) to the control of the Word of God.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

MODERATOR HAT ON

While the confessions are not inspired and not on par with scripture, nevertheless they are a tested and tried summary of the faith. I'll allow this thread to continue but I want to go on record (just in case) that the confessions are not to be attacked, directly or obliquely. I am not saying that anyone in this thread is leaning in that direction but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Carry on everyone.
MODERATOR HAT OFF

What exactly do you mean (for clarification)? I've noticed consistant dissent from both of the confessions (WCF and LBC 1689) here at the PuritanBoard. Both uphold a "Historicist" eschatology that very few people here agree with (this doesn't refer to me because I AM historicist). I'm just using that example to say it seems people have been given room to not completely agree with the confessions, so I assumed it was the norm.

 

[CharlieJ]

In addition, in his hope for a new confession, Frame isn't saying the old ones are bad; he merely points out that there are more issues that should be addressed.

It's interesting to examine what is in the confessions and what isn't. In an age that seems to tend toward reducing confessional content, it makes more sense to add to it, since there are more issues today than back in the 17th century.



Areas I'd like to see addressed in the Confession:

Relationship of Confessional churches to those of other beliefs.

Statement on the Lordship Controversy (of course, there are already chapters on Saving Faith and Repentance Unto Life, but I think it might be possible to amend or add to them in such a way that they speak clearly to the problems created by Chafer/Ryrie/Hodges/Wilkin.)

Family and gender issues

Evangelism and Missions

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I think the relationship between church and confession is somewhat symbiotic. For the confession to have any real meaning then it must have some authority in the church. Yet for the confession to serve as a statement of what is believed and taught and considered to be acceptable, then the church must have some authority over what is actually stated in the confession.

The church forms the Confessions based entirely on Scripture. Then of course the church should live up to its own Confessional standards, which are ultimately based in Scripture. So the Confessions arise from man's diligent study of the Bible, which in turn is the directive for what we believe and how we lead our lives, and is authoritative for each individual church (at least in the PCA and OPC). Plus, I like the word "symbiotic."

 

[SolaScriptura]

Plus, I like the word "symbiotic."

Me too. I've had an affinity for the word ever since the "symbiote" was introduced in the Spider Man comics.

 

[Herald]

MODERATOR HAT ON

While the confessions are not inspired and not on par with scripture, nevertheless they are a tested and tried summary of the faith. I'll allow this thread to continue but I want to go on record (just in case) that the confessions are not to be attacked, directly or obliquely. I am not saying that anyone in this thread is leaning in that direction but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Carry on everyone.
MODERATOR HAT OFF

What exactly do you mean (for clarification)? I've noticed consistant dissent from both of the confessions (WCF and LBC 1689) here at the PuritanBoard. Both uphold a "Historicist" eschatology that very few people here agree with (this doesn't refer to me because I AM historicist). I'm just using that example to say it seems people have been given room to not completely agree with the confessions, so I assumed it was the norm.

Manley,

The confessional requirements for PB membership are:

Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

Manley, I think this is self explanatory. There are areas where the confessions are silent. They do not address each and every circumstance that a believer will encounter in their Christian walk. However, the confessions are concordia cum veritate, in harmony with truth. The burden rests on the one who questions the confessions to present their argument for consideration. It is for that reason that I posted that cautionary reminder.

 

[Pilgrim]

The English Baptists of the 17th century were not referred to as "Reformed Baptists." There were two predominant divisions of Baptist in 17th century England: the Strict (Particular Baptists) and the General Baptists. The Strict Baptists were known for their Calvinism while the General Baptists would fit nicely into what we call "four pointers." The term "Reformed Baptist" took hold in the last century.

I'm not sure if the General Baptists necessarily held to a 4 point view. I believe many if not all of them were fully Arminian with views that are more or less similar to Free Will Baptists today.

 

[MW]

We would not say a Christian controls his confession. Rather, we say he is a Christian because of his confession. Likewise, it is a church because of its confession. The "rock" on which Jesus Christ builds His church is not Peter, but his confession. To say the church produces or controls the confession is Roman Catholicism.

We have had a discussion about "semper reformanda" on a previous occasion. It ought not to be translated "always reforming;" it is this mistranslation which leads to a conceptual problem for many people.

 

[Herald]

The English Baptists of the 17th century were not referred to as "Reformed Baptists." There were two predominant divisions of Baptist in 17th century England: the Strict (Particular Baptists) and the General Baptists. The Strict Baptists were known for their Calvinism while the General Baptists would fit nicely into what we call "four pointers." The term "Reformed Baptist" took hold in the last century.

I'm not sure if the General Baptists necessarily held to a 4 point view. I believe many if not all of them were fully Arminian with views that are more or less similar to Free Will Baptists today.

Chris, thank you for the mild correction. The English General Baptists certainly were Arminian.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

We would not say a Christian controls his confession. Rather, we say he is a Christian because of his confession. Likewise, it is a church because of its confession. The "rock" on which Jesus Christ builds His church is not Peter, but his confession. To say the church produces or controls the confession is Roman Catholicism.

We have had a discussion about "semper reformanda" on a previous occasion. It ought not to be translated "always reforming;" it is this mistranslation which leads to a conceptual problem for many people.

This may be the the thread
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/what-proper-boundaries-theological-discussion-22124/#post275815

 

[vagabond]

Armourbearer,

We would not say a Christian controls his confession. Rather, we say he is a Christian because of his confession. Likewise, it is a church because of its confession. The "rock" on which Jesus Christ builds His church is not Peter, but his confession. To say the church produces or controls the confession is Roman Catholicism.

I think that I understand your point; perhaps I don't. But if I understand correctly, I disagree. A Christian is a Christian because of his or her confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, as revealed in Scripture. He's not a Christian because of his subscription to a Confession (I'll designate written church documents like WCF with a capital "C", as opposed to personal confessions like Peter's Also, capital "C" in "the Church" denotes the universal Church, while a lowercase "church" is a local body or denomination). A church is a church because of this confession of Christ, not because of their Confession.

There are quite a few different Confessions held to by various believers around the world. Directed, of course, by the sovereignty of God in his or her life, if a believer holds to a set of convictions in line with a certain Confession, he may identify with that Confession. If, however, a believer (and usually a group of them) determines that their beliefs don't line up with an existing Confession, he / they might decide to produce a new / revised Confession.

This plurality of Biblical Confessions, bound by one confession in Christ, help to demonstrate that the central confession in Christ as Lord and Savior, in accordance with Scripture, makes a person a Christian and a church a church. While it is the Spirit and Word of God that (hopefully) control the writing of the Confessions, the Confessions do not make a person Christian, nor do they make a church a church. It's the heart confession -- like Peter's -- that makes a person a Christian and a church a church.

When I speak of a church "controlling" a Confession, I mean that the body writes or selects, and then down the road revises, rejects, or upholds, its Confession. It isn't Catholicism to say that a church "controls" Confessions, in this sense, directed, of course, by the sovereignty of God. It IS Catholicism to say the Church created the Bible (as Catholics tend to say), or that the Church creates/controls doctrine.

SUMMARY: Our Sovereign God directs the Word to create the Church, the People of God. He's always formed His people with His Word, from Adam, to the call of Abraham, to the Mosaic Law, to Ezekiel's vision, to Christ -- the Living Word, to the final resurrection. He often directs a church to write a formal Confession. That Confession is a product of the church, with God's sovereign direction through the Spirit and Scripture. But the church isn't the product of a Confession. A church can exist without a written formal Confession, as long as they have a uniting heart confession in Christ (as described above). A formal Confession, however, can't come into existence without a church.

 

[MW]

I think that I understand your point; perhaps I don't. But if I understand correctly, I disagree. A Christian is a Christian because of his or her confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, as revealed in Scripture. He's not a Christian because of his subscription to a Confession (I'll designate written church documents like WCF with a capital "C", as opposed to personal confessions like Peter's). Likewise, a church is a church because of this confession of Christ, not because of their Confession.

This dichotomy is without foundation. All that the church confesses concerning Scripture, God, decrees, creation, providence, the fall, the covenants, the Mediator, the will, calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, faith, repentance, good works, perseverance, assurance, law, liberty, worship, vows, magistracy, marriage, church, communion, sacraments, church power, death, resurrection and judgment are all to be tested to see whether they proclaim "Jesus is the Lord" and therefore whether what is confessed is the voice of the Holy Spirit. There is no place for a nominalist view of confession. Jesus is Lord of all.

 

[vagabond]

I think you may have misunderstood. The question of the thread is whether written, formal Confessions control the churches, or whether the churches control Confessions.

Of course the confession of each true heart and church that "Jesus is Lord of all" DOES control the believer and the churches. But this is not the thread's issue.

If we don't make a distinction, an argument like "Christ built the church on Peter's confession, in the same way He builds a modern church on the Westminster Confession" actually could hold water. But that kind of argument doesn't make sense. It could be very reasonably argued that Christ builds the church on the same confession that Peter made. But to argue that Christ builds each church on its formally written Confession (which, as has been pointed out, is an incomplete manifestation of it's heart confession) doesn't work.

Please take time to critique, perhaps, some of the other points I made above. As I've said, I love the great written Confessions. But I don't believe that they make Christians and churches. They are incomplete manifestations of the heart confessions that make believers worldwide to be believers, and churches worldwide to be churches.

 

[Pergamum]

We would not say a Christian controls his confession. Rather, we say he is a Christian because of his confession. Likewise, it is a church because of its confession. The "rock" on which Jesus Christ builds His church is not Peter, but his confession. To say the church produces or controls the confession is Roman Catholicism.

We have had a discussion about "semper reformanda" on a previous occasion. It ought not to be translated "always reforming;" it is this mistranslation which leads to a conceptual problem for many people.

But believing in the WCF is not the sign that one is a Christian. The WCF is much more specific than the "minimums" of being "in the faith."

One can fail to hold to the WCF and still be in a church or be a Christian, so the two things do not overlap totally.


I fail to see why saying that a certain brand of Christians got together and created the WCF is Romanist.

 

[MW]

If we don't make a distinction, an argument like "Christ built the church on Peter's confession, in the same way He builds a modern church on the Westminster Confession" actually could hold water. But that kind of argument doesn't make sense. It could be very reasonably argued that Christ builds the church on the same confession that Peter made. But to argue that Christ builds each church on its formally written Confession (which, as has been pointed out, is an incomplete manifestation of it's heart confession) doesn't work.

Please take time to critique, perhaps, some of the other points I made above. As I've said, I love the great written Confessions. But I don't believe that they make Christians and churches. They are incomplete manifestations of the heart confessions that make believers worldwide to be believers, and churches worldwide to be churches.

I omit to critique your other points as they are really only alterior expressions of your nominalism.

Jesus Christ builds His church on the truth. The Westminster Confession is true. So, yes, Jesus Christ builds His church on the Westminster Confession of Faith. While we can acknowledge different degrees of truth, we cannot accept different kinds. The only way to discover the Christian church is by its confession of the truth. There is not a spiritual entity called "the church" which exists apart from confession of Jesus Christ.

The catholic visible church, according to the Westminster Confession, is a society made up of those who profess the true religion. Particular churches are members thereof, more or less pure according to its confession. A less pure confession equals a less pure church. A less pure church can be acknowledged as an essentially true church, but its confession marks it out as a less pure church. The same applies to individual Christians.

 

[MW]

But believing in the WCF is not the sign that one is a Christian. The WCF is much more specific than the "minimums" of being "in the faith."

One can fail to hold to the WCF and still be in a church or be a Christian, so the two things do not overlap totally.

I fail to see why saying that a certain brand of Christians got together and created the WCF is Romanist.

The problem is with your idea that there are "brands" of Christianity, as if truth is of different kinds. There is one Christ, and therefore only one Christian faith and life. A confession is simply an acknowledgement of what one believes that Christian faith and life to be. Yes, one can still be a church or Christian and not hold to the WCF, but from the confessional perspective of the WCF such a church or Christian must be in error at the point at which the WCF is rejected, and therefore cannot be regarded as holding the Christian faith and life at that point.

 

[vagabond]

You basically support my point, that a believer/church is made by commitment to Truth, that is, Christ, and not to a written Confession.

But, a few things...

An attack of "nominalism" is meaningless. "Nominalism" can be described as a denial of universals. I was actually EMPHASIZING the universal in my posts, over the manifestations of it. Or, it can be described as a rejection of the notion that abstracts exist. Again, this doesn't apply. Perhaps if you would clarify what you mean on this point.

In addition, "a less pure confession" = "a less pure believer/church" doesn't work if we're talking about formal written Confessions, since churches don't achieve absolute subscription, so their Confessions are inaccurate judges of their true status. Maybe they should achieve absolute subscription...a topic not for this thread...but we speak of realities, not ideals.

However, if we speak of heart confession, the above equation works. Nominalism would reject the idea of this universal, or reject the notion of such an abstract, unwritten confession, perhaps...I'm not too versed in nominalist rhetoric.

Still confused on your label of "nominalist." Seems like an illogical thing to say. Please clarify.

 

[vagabond]

Originally Posted by armourbearer
The problem is with your idea that there are "brands" of Christianity, as if truth is of different kinds.

I don't believe that's what Pergamum meant, but you have failed to address the point of why the idea that a body of believers "produced" or "controls" its written Confession (driven, as we have seen, by God's sovereignly-directed heart conviction) is Romanist.

After repeated posts, this point remains undefended.