One of the results of the Arian controversies and other (anti-)Trinitarian uprisings in the early church were creeds and formulations that specifically expressed in positive content what was to be believed about God and Jesus. The Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian formulations are case studies in precision resulting from conflict. In fact, they were innovative. If the early church pastors and teachers had insisted that they already had everything they needed in formal doctrine they could never have developed an instrument to deal with Arians and others.

The Westminster Confession has much similar content. “Arminianism” is not a word you will find in the Confession nor in the Catechisms. When Arminianism is completely eradicated from Christendom (by peaceful persuasion, in case you were wondering), the portions of the Westminster Confession and catechisms dealing with this issue will still be just as understandable as they are now.

There are other sorts of statements in the Westminster Confession. For example:

…much less hath the pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.

What is different about this is it names someone. One of the issues being dealt with was not reducible simply to what one ought to teach, but to whom ought one be submissive to. Personal loyalties were at issue rather than simply doctrinal affirmations (I realize that one can formulate verbally these personal loyalties as doctrinal formulations but my vague distinction is still entirely helpful and legitimate). When all the Roman Catholics join the Protestant fold this stuff will make no sense at all. A hundred thousand years from now no one will know what Westminster was talking about (assuming anyone remembers Westminster at all by then).

This brings me to my observation. Recently a four-congregation denomination was born that included this in its constitution:

We condemn all human perversions of the Protestant biblical doctrine of Justification by grace through faith alone, whether from Romanism or from various alleged Protestant denominations, e.g., covenantal nomism, the New Perspective on Paul, the Auburn Avenue/Federal Vision doctrine or Shepherdism. Further, we shall not extend the right hand of fellowship nor have fraternal relations with ecclesiastical bodies that refuse to discipline church officers holding to these damnable heresies.

In theory, this is all about doctrinal affirmation, but in fact there is no doctrinal content. No formula, affirmation, or denial is included. Just when you expect some needful propositions all you get are a list of personal loyalties demanded as self-evident. There’s the last name of a man that we must reject and likewise one church. The other labels are notoriously vague and basically stand in for various scholars.

This reminds me of a reactionary essay I read on the Lord’s Supper a few months back which, other than being a case study in what D. A. Carson describes as the root word fallacy, contained a standard for orthodoxy that consisted not in doctrines but in people. If you like Charles Hodge but have no time for John Williamson Nevin, then you are all right. Otherwise your (strangely measured) orthodoxy may be called into question.

It seems to me that people are caught in a situation that only allows them to go in this direction. The objects of their criticism are allegedly all teaching new doctrine contrary to the doctrinal standards of the Church. To call for a new creed would be to admit that the accused are in fact well within the old boundaries. I’m all for acknowledging the limitations of doctrinal formulations but this is precisely the area where they are required. Instead of hearing whose name has been associated with any alleged “movement,” we should be getting real doctrinal analysis either arguing for a new standard based on Scripture or showing how the present standard has been violated.

Obviously, the second option is not going to work. On issues like “paedocommunion” which has been associated with these things eveyone knows that it is not confessional and many presbyteries have ruled that it is an allowable exception to be preached and taught. On other issues, it simply is not a confessional issue. There is nothing in my oath of ministerial office, for example, that mandates I agree with Luther about the soteriology of Second-Temple Judaism.

So instead we get personal loyalty lists. Guilt-by-association has become the official method of analysis in some quarters.

Postscript: As Jeff reports, we approved and accepted a report on “the Federal Vision” etc that is, I’m happy to say, about doctrinal affirmations and denials rather than personal loyalties. I know the committee members worked hard, and they have my thanks.