Those who hold a reformed view commonly adhere to a confession or doctrinal statement. This serves to carefully define, explain and delimit major doctrinal issues held by an individual, a church, or some other association of individuals or churches. It also serves as a valuable tool to instruct the saints in the important doctrines of the faith. And it serves as a standard to determine when an individual's beliefs or teachings are within or outside the pale of orthodoxy.

A confession can be a very useful tool when it is properly used. In this treatise, we seek to probe some of the issues concerning the content and use of confessions.

Essential and Nonessential Doctrines.

An important concept which we need to recognize is that some doctrinal issues are more important than others.

A church's confession is typically used as a standard by which to judge whether an individual is doctrinally fit to serve as an elder or pastor of a church. When we use a confession in this way, we must ensure that the confession addresses only those issues which are essential for a pastor to hold. Nonessential issues should be omitted from the confession.

For example, we must ensure that a pastor is sound in his stand that Scripture is our sole basis for authoritative truth. As the Westminster Confession puts it:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. ... (WCF, Chapter I, Article VI.)

A church's confession, therefore, should stipulate which doctrines are essential for its elders to embrace. Secondary issues, which would not disqualify a man from serving as an elder, should not be included in the confession.

Three Uses for Confessions.

There are three typical uses for confessions...

1. A church confession is a church's definition of orthodoxy. Those who agree with the confession are regarded to hold sound doctrine, while those who disagree with the confession on one or more points are regarded to be outside the bounds of orthodoxy. This, at least in principle, is how the confession is to be applied.
2. A personal confession is an individual's confession of his personal beliefs. This may or may not be his definition of orthodoxy. Often, he will include many of the views he personally holds, but which he would not require others to hold. For example, a pastoral candidate may wish to submit his personal confession as part of his resumé. In this case, he may wish to state his personal convictions on the millennial controversy, even though he would never disqualify another man from being an elder just because that man does not share his convictions on this matter.
3. A focused confession may be used, for example, when two or more churches wish to collaborate on a matter of common interest. For example, churches may wish to sponsor a conference on Creationism, where a special confession may be drawn up which defines the common ground required in order to conduct the conference (e.g. belief in: a literal six-day creation, the Trinity, the attributes of God, the inerrancy and sole authority of Scripture, and salvation by Christ's atoning sacrifice). They may wish to invite other churches to participate, provided they agree with this focused confession.

Notice that, while the church confession and focused confession are used in the same way, the difference lies in the fact that a church will generally have a stricter definition of orthodoxy than will a loose alliance of churches or individuals who are collaborating on a focused cause. In other words, the "essential doctrines" necessary for the proper functioning of a church will typically be more numerous and detailed than will the "essential doctrines" needed to conduct a conference on Creationism.

The Confession and Liberty of Conscience.

A church confession should spell out the doctrines which a church regards to be essential and non-negotiable. Any issue which is not addressed in the church's confession should be understood as one on which personal liberty is granted. In a church having a plurality of elders, this would mean that the elders must agree with the confession (and with one another) on issues addressed in the confession, but need not agree with one another on matters which are not addressed in the confession.

Now the question arises: Is an elder at liberty to teach on an issue which is not addressed in the church's confession, or must he be silent on nonessential issues? There are two competing issues here. On the one hand, an elder should be given the liberty to freely express his convictions, and to give reasons for them. On the other hand, there is the danger that his audience may conclude that what he is teaching is the church's official view, or that it is a view shared by all the other elders. Because an elder speaks for the church, he must be careful not to misrepresent the church's position.

I believe the best answer is that he does have the liberty to express his personal views, provided he clearly statesthat these are his own views, and that they do not necessarily represent the official views of the church, nor the views of the other elders. Once he makes it clear that he is stating his own personal views, then he should have the liberty, if he wishes, to fully declare and defend those views. If he forgets to state that this is his personal view, then one of the other elders should gently and graciously make it clear that this is not the church's official stand.

When an Elder disagrees with the Confession.

We need to make every effort to ensure that no man is ever appointed as an elder who disagrees with the confession. But what if an elder, through further study of the Scriptures (or through further study of the confession), finds himself in disagreement with the confession? The elders should then convene to consider his reasons for questioning the confession. During this time, he should probably withdraw from the duties of an elder until the problem is resolved. At the very least, he should refrain from teaching on the points where he disagrees with the confession.

The body of elders should carefully search the Scriptures to see whether the reasons given by the dissenting elder are valid or not. If they deem the reasons to be Scriptural and valid, then they should revise the confession to bring it into conformity with the Scriptures. If they deem the reasons not to be Scriptural or valid, then the dissenting elder should be asked to resign.

It is important that we remember that our confessions are not inspired, and that they must be submitted to the test of Scripture. If we find that they do not measure up, they must be changed to bring them into harmony with the Scriptures.

The Confession and its Relation to Christian Unity.

How often do we lament the fractured condition of the church of Jesus Christ! Or perhaps we are so accustomed to this fragmentation that we have become calloused to the detrimental effects of it. In any case, we ought to lament the splintering of Christ's church over minor doctrinal issues. Christ and His apostles made it very clear that the brothers are to be known for their great, sacrificial love for one another, and that they are to tolerate differences of conviction on matters that are not central to their faith (Ephesians 4:1-6; Romans 14:1-23; John 13:34).

True Christian unity has two foundations:

1. On essential matters, we must agree.
2. On nonessential matters, we must not require agreement.

While I do not believe our confessions always draw this boundary properly, I believe we sometimes do draw this boundary properly in our attitude toward Calvinistic authors and churches with whom we may not be in full agreement.

Consider water baptism for example. There is great irony in the fact that Baptists will praise such non-baptistic Calvinists as Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, Packer, Sproul and Lloyd-Jones, and will recommend their writings, yet will exclude from membership in their assemblies anyone who shares the convictions of these men. Likewise, it is tragic that Presbyterians will praise such Calvinistic Baptists as Spurgeon, Bunyan, Gill, Carey, Piper and Martin and yet will refuse to accept Calvinistic Baptists as elders in their churches.

Is there not a great inconsistency in the fact that we allow controversy over an ordinance to become a great barrier separating brothers in Christ who fully agree on the major doctrines of the Christian faith? A man may fully embrace the Trinity, the Sovereignty of God, the total depravity of man, the effectual redemption of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc., but if he disagrees on the mode or recipients of water baptism, he is considered unfit to serve as an elder, and is often regarded as unfit even to be accepted into full fellowship as a member of the church!

If we can praise great Calvinists who disagree with our baptistic views; and if we can sometimes recommend a Calvinistic church which does not hold our view on baptism; then why can we not apply this same sentiment when it comes to church membership or the qualifications of an elder?

Nothing has so divided Calvinistic Christians as this matter of water baptism. Instead of grieving over this divisive attitude toward baptism and repenting of our intolerance toward our brothers, we instead insist that our Lord wants us all to be baptized a particular way (and woe to the man who will not submit to it!), or that it is somehow more important to protect the concept of the "covenant family" than to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

What I am suggesting is that a particular view of water baptism should not be included in our church confessions. In many practical ways, we often tacitly admit that it is not such an important issue. Whenever a Baptist commends the Institutes of the Christian Religion as worthwhile reading, or when a Presbyterian commends Gill's Body of Divinity, he is acknowledging that baptism is a lesser doctrine, and that Calvin and Gill should be trusted in the important areas of the Christian faith. Likewise, when a Reformed Baptist brother seeks out a Presbyterian church because there is no Reformed Baptist church in his community (or a Presbyterian seeks out a Reformed Baptist church), he is acknowledging that baptism is a minor issue compared to the issues of God's sovereignty, and other fundamentals. What usually drives brothers away from such a church is that church's insistence upon a particular view of water baptism.

Can we truly believe that our Lord wanted His people to quarrel over the issue of water baptism, and to disfellowship from like-minded Christians who disagree solely on this issue? Did He intend for water baptism to be an instrument of division? Did He intend for Christians to treat their brothers as heretics simply because they hold a different view of water baptism?

Part of the problem is that we often become too emotional over this doctrine to calmly consider the opposing view, and so it becomes impossible to engage in constructive dialogue on this matter.

Another part of the problem is that we often confuse depth of conviction with importance of the doctrine. We need to understand that it is perfectly appropriate to have strong convictions on an issue while at the same time recognizing it to be of secondary importance, and respecting another brother for having strong convictions to the contrary. Paul teaches this very thing in Romans 14:5 ...

Romans 14:5 - One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

Romans 14:3-4 - The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

And, surely Paul is not teaching us that we are to tolerate disagreement from a distance. In other words, he is not teaching us that each man is to have his own separate church, and that the two men may behave kindly toward one another only when they don't have to live together in the same assembly. But, is this not how Baptists and Presbyterians act toward one another? They seem to be at peace only when each remains in his own church. If either tries to cross the line into the other man's church, he is rejected as not measuring up to the church's standard.

I am not advocating Ecumenicalism—Ecumenicalism is not the remedy for the divided church. Ecumenicals seek to join apostates with believers, and to gloss over any and all disagreements. They seek to reduce "Christianity" to the lowest common denominator, which, given that they wish to include even Liberals and Catholics, means that there is practically nothing left on which to agree, and whatever is left is far less than what Scripture requires for Christian faith.

Ecumenicalism reduces the class of "essential doctrines" to an unacceptably barren set of beliefs. But Ecumenicalism can be viewed as an overreaction to Conservatism's tendency to promote nonessential doctrines to the status of essential doctrines—in practice if not in principle. Matters such as Sabbath observance, millennial views and water baptism, are often included in a church's confession or doctrinal statement, thereby effectively excluding brothers who sincerely disagree on these matters. And, since these brothers are not fully accepted into the church, they often feel obliged to seek out or form another church where their views are acceptable. Unfortunately, they often make the same mistake of rejecting those who disagree on these issues, and so the error propagates.

If we are careful to include in our confessions only those doctrines which we deem essential for proper Christian fellowship, and to grant liberty to those who disagree with us on nonessential matters, then our churches would enjoy much greater unity of spirit. Moreover, individual Christians would benefit greatly from being exposed to open dialogue and debate on secondary issues, and would be better prepared to form their own convictions on these matters. Surely, by accepting those who disagree with us, we would express true Christian love for our brothers and would be able to put into practice the scriptural injunctions...

Romans 14:13 - Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

Ephesians 4:1-3 - Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

The great Protestant Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries stand as some of the great gifts which our Lord, through the instrumentality of his devoted servants, has given to his church. While no one pretends that these confessions are inerrant, nor that they possess the authority of Scripture, yet we do regard them as very careful and insightful commentaries and summaries of the teaching of God's Holy Word.

We must have a proper understanding of the purpose a confession is to serve, and of the proper ways to use it. Properly used, it could help us re-establish the blessed unity enjoyed by the early church.

May our gracious Lord bless yet another generation of His saints through the careful use of this precious tool!