As far as the community of men that would serve on such a committee (for lack of a better term) these would be numerous. Each should be a respected scholar in the area they are writing about. The slate of men in July would be a good beginning, but many others would need to be added.
Documents that directly address current issues in Christendom are position papers. As someone has already written, the great Confessions, Creeds, and Catechisms were not intended to do that, but are instead summary statements defining the Christian religion.
Many denominations have written "position papers" to address specific issues like abortion, same-sex civil unions, even (at long last) NPP. I wonder if they are sufficient, really, because they don't carry the same weight in the denominations as the WCF does, but I think they're at least helpful.
I don't like the idea of a re-write of the WCF, but a document on issues concerning the church in the last two centuries may be well worth it. How it would be implemented into church bodies, and who would be selected might be a nightmare, especially on the selection of scholars. I'm sure what is developed as a working document would need approval from the various denominations.
Would the document on essentials of the Christian faith written around 1912 be what we have in mind. I know plenty of people referring to it, but it is not in any of the official denominational standards, AFAIK.
What was the denominational makeup at the time of Westminster? I assume there were much more of a consensus at the time it was written. It may not be possibly today, to write such a confession.
Last edited by John_C; Mon Apr 03, 20068:15 AM.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
I am not sure. We would have to search: (1) our pulpits, (2) our seminaries (numerous areas: systematic, biblical studies, practical theology, languages, history, etc.), and (3) our congregations for the right people. We do not desire to look over the men in our congregations as they will help with "language" that is understood by the layman. The pastors can benefit the process as they see what false doctrines the Church battles day by day. The professors and such of course benefit the process by exacting the language and making the arguments clear, concise, and convicting, etc. It should be more than just serving, or being asked, or being qualified to serve on such a committee. There will need to be a heartfelt purpose in the person serving, et. al.--prayer ...
There are lost of names that are not well known (or as well known) that could be nominated to serve: Richard Gamble, John D. Currid, Charles E. Hill, Frank A. James, III, John R. Muether, Douglas J. Green, J. Alan Groves, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Vern S. Poythress, Peter A. Lillback, etc., etc., etc.
Last edited by J_Edwards; Mon Apr 03, 20069:00 AM.
Johnnie_Burgess said: Who else do you think should be on such a group?
I am very much convinced that if you put a bunch of so-called "scholars" together you are most likely going to end up with a document that is tentative and subtly open. Just look at recent history at how they dealt with the situations where heresy had to be rooted out and how the "scholars" handled those situations, e.g., Norman Shepherd, Auburn Avenue, N.T. Wright, etc.
What you really need is to include a contingency of solidly conservative and knowledgeable laymen who have a voice. When the CRC was cruising merrily along down the road to apostasy, there was a group of men and women who formed "The Association of Christian Reformed Laymen". [see their publication, A Handbook of CRC Issues. Unfortunately, they were basically ignored by the "scholars" and "clergy" but they did a great service in sounding the alarm when the "upper crust" erred and for providing arguments against them with biblical truth. I have to believe that their efforts, although not successful in stemming the tide, were invaluable in opening the eyes of many who would have otherwise been carried away as did the majority of others.
There are many good laymen to be found who have far more common sense and discernment than many, if not most "scholars" who spend far too much of their time in the cerebral ionosphere where the oxygen supply is lacking... ya know what I mean here, Vern?
Robin said: Documents that directly address current issues in Christendom are position papers. As someone has already written, the great Confessions, Creeds, and Catechisms were not intended to do that, but are instead summary statements defining the Christian religion.
Wasn't the Nicene Creed written in response to the Arian heresy?
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Unfortunately, they were basically ignored by the "scholars" and "clergy"
And while I agree with you regarding the fact of the well informed laity I'm afraid that unless you get some of the intelligentsia siding with them your going to get the CRC all over again.
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Wasn't the Nicene Creed written in response to the Arian heresy?
Indeed it was. It takes the form of a statement describing the nature of Jesus Christ as both fully God and fully man. There has been no need to modify it, though, because it is a positive statement of the truth more than a negative statement against things which are not true. I think that's one of the most profound strengths of the great creeds and confessions; that they are positive assertions rather than argumentative descriptions and refutations of false doctrine.
As usual that was a good post <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
As you may or may not know, because of moving to a new community my wife and I did a little Church hopping. Your mentioning the CRC brought back bad memories of one of these Churches. The first day we went to the CRC we met with the pastor and asked him for a statement of faith. He dug to the bottom of the stack in his filing cabinet and handed me a brochure. On reading that brochure that night I found that it was very Reformed. However, in the coming weeks I found out that this Church supported ministries like Willow Creek and Robert Schuler. I approached the pastor about this and was told in no uncertain terms that these ministries were in keeping with Reformed doctrine; in fact Bill Hybels is CRC. Need less to say my wife and I no longer attend there.
What I am still scratching my head about, is how a Church can have such a good statement of faith and think that ministries like Willow Creek and Robert Schuler are consistent with Reformed doctrine. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
I agree with you can not just have scholars make up the group. Laymen who have the education will help keep the scholars from going to far in ether direction. I also think you need to have a lot of Pastors included in the group.
But at the same time there should be a lot of care in who is selected. What a person stands for should be known before they are picked. Should they come from one denomination or more than one?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
