What, then, of creeds and
confessions? As to form, they bind only those who voluntarily profess or
subscribe them. As to content, “they bind only so far as they affirm what the
Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.”[1]
Where they depart in any respect from Scripture, we must follow Scripture and
suspend our allegiance to that subordinate standard or to that ‘errant’ section
within it. In other words, we follow a man or a confessional document only
insofar as they unambiguously follow Christ speaking in the Scriptures. DML-J
encouraged Christians to do their own thinking and to work things out for
themselves. “We must not swallow automatically everything we read in books,
even from the greatest men. We must examine everything.”[2]
This raises then interesting point
that has bedevilled many churches over the centuries and that it its mere
possession of theologically orthodox confessional statements. While the Doctor
referred to these as mere “paper confessions” which found no reflection in what
the churches were actually preaching, he had little time for them. Dr Harry Uprichard,
a staunch Westminster Confession theologian, wrote, “Mere possession of a
confessional basis does not ensure that a Christian body is characterised by
the preaching of the Word. It must actively preach the same.”[3] If
the Gospel is not being preached in churches where confessional correctness is
demanded, then possession of such a confession becomes a liability and a
hindrance to true Gospel preaching. It becomes purely academic whether or not
the confession is biblical. Macleod who is also an avid Westminster theologian,
contends that “it is not the official teaching of any given church that
determines its soundness or otherwise, but its actual preaching.”[4]
Churches would be better served if they altered their confessions to reflect
what is actually being preached in their churches instead of maintaining their
confessions and pretending that all its ministers preach according to its dogmas.
Machen is right on the money here when he describes such inexcusable anomalies
in terms of dishonesty.
According to Reformed theologian,
Prof. John M. Frame, churches ought to be free to alter their confessions, and
allow elders, whether teaching or ruling, to dissent from their confession of
faith within some limits. This safeguards the position of supremacy for
Scripture, and removes the possibility of Confessions becoming, not merely on a
par with Scripture, but in actual practice, superior to Scripture in
authority. He writes
Confessions
are not Scripture, and they should not be treated as infallible or as
ultimately normative. Indeed, I believe it is important that in a church
fellowship it be possible to revise the creeds, and for that purpose, it must
also be possible for members and officers to dissent from the
creed within some limits. Otherwise, the creed will,
practically speaking, be elevated to a position of authority equivalent
to Scripture. A “strict” view of subscription in which ministers
are never permitted to teach contrary to any detail of the
creed might be seen as a way to protect the orthodoxy of the
church. However, in my view, such a view is actually subversive
of orthodoxy, because it is subversive of biblical authority
and sufficiency. Under such a form of subscription, Scripture is
not given the freedom to reform the church according to God’s will.[5]
Frame’s
position is reasonable and most commendable, and while it possesses the
potential to loosen the hold that confessions have on its office-holders, it
also frees those office-holders to demonstrate that Scripture is de facto the supreme standard of the
church and the basis of their faith. It is the Christian duty of everyone who
subscribes such confessions to do so in the knowledge that where they differ
from Scripture in any regard, they must be free to go with Scripture, and not
the creedal standard of the church, without ecclesiastical penalty being
imposed. It is very easy to agree with Frame’s position in theory but then to
invalidate it by saying that the confession of any particular church is so
correct that it does not need to be altered. If confessions can be altered to
bring them into line with the clear statements of Scripture, especially where
the Gospel is concerned, then they ought to be.
DML-J
held a similar position to that articulated by Frame. The Presbyterian Church
in Wales, into whose ministry he was ordained in 1927, altered its 1823
Confession of Faith in 1875 to include the universal aspect in the Atonement.
Then in 1933, the Welsh Presbyterian church adopted a looser attitude to its
own Confession of Faith, yet DML-J, who was minister in Sandfields at that
time, showed no concern whatever about this. Despite the fact that the Welsh
Presbyterian church did this for purely liberal reasons, the Doctor found it
liberating and also gave him the freedom to follow where Scripture leads. His
evangelistic sermons in Sandfields demonstrate that he too enjoyed a looser
adherence to his church’s confessional standards that energised his Gospel
preaching, and meant that he was preaching sermons that were in keeping with
those confessional standards.
DML-J
believed that if a church claims to be ‘Reformed,’ it must demonstrate the
authenticity of that claim by continually reforming its affairs,[6]
its practice and, where necessary, its confessional standards,[7]
according to Scripture.
The Church is always to be under the Word, ... You must not
assume that because the Church started correctly she must continue so. She did
not do so in New Testament times; she has not done so since.[8]
Baptist
professor of New Testament, Ralph P. Martin, makes a similar point to Frame
when he says,
Nevertheless, our confessions
are not inherently sacrosanct or beyond revision and improvement; and, of
course, church history did not stop in the seventeenth century. We are faced
with errors today which those who drew up the great confessions were not faced
with and which they did not explicitly address in the confessions, but it is a
task to be undertaken with extreme caution. ...[9]
Martin
went on to say that “a confession is a useful means for the public affirmation
and defence of truth...(it) serves as a public standard of fellowship and
discipline...(and it) serves as a concise standard by which to evaluate
ministers of the Word.”
