On this episode, we welcome Rev. Dr. Carl R. Trueman to discuss the important role of creeds and confessions in the church through his book The Creedal Imperative. Dr. Trueman is the Paul Woolley Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary and Pastor of Cornerstone Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ambler, PA. Dr. Trueman brings his critical thought and historic sensitivity to this important plea to many conservative evangelicals.
Participants: Camden Bucey, Carl Trueman, Jared Oliphint
Browse more episodes from this program and learn how to subscribe.
Thanks for the program. I look forward to reading the book. In general I think I need to get better at showing the unconvinced through “Biblical induction” that the confession and catechisms are faithful interpretations of scripture. I find my “CredoBaptist” friends (quotation marks meaning that I recognize that is a rather unspecific category) do this much better than my “paedobaptist” friends and I.
For some reason not showing up on iTunes
Excellent podcast. I always appreciate Trueman, and I pray that God may use this book to bring some further along towards a robust confessionalism.
Since it was raised in the episode, I am kind of curious as to how low the bar ought to be for membership. I fully admit the distinction between requirements for office and those for members, and that we ought not to break the bruised reed or quench the smoking flax. But specifically, if there is a bar against ignorance and scandalousness (L. Cat. 173) and that the ignorant ought not be admitted to the table “until they receive instruction,” what level of knowledge should be required? At present, I’m inclined to say that in Presbyterian churches a working knowledge of the teaching of the Shorter Catechism (and not necessarily the Confession) would be the cognitive bar, at least as a general rule. Is that fair?
The claim that the bar of membership should be set as low as mere “credible profession of the gospel,” should be questioned more seriously in contemporary Reformed and Presbyterian circles.
Even in those communions that hold to confessional membership and close communion, a difference between the affirmation required of members and the knowledge and ability to teach required of officers is maintained. For those interested in the argument for confessional membership and close communion (contra the contemporary “credible profession” view) see:
http://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/recovering-reformed-communion.html
http://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2010/04/recovering-reformed-communion-2.html
In a shameless bit of self-promotion, my Th.M. thesis at WTS dealt with the differences (and there are many) between the Westminster Confession and the Baptist confession of 1689. I argued in the thesis that the differences in the Baptist confession represent confessional statements on the part of the Baptists in the later half of the 1600s against Quakers and other related movements in England. These are often overlooked because of the major differences regarding church government and the sacraments.
Richard, I think that they all-important difference is the excision of “good and necessary consequence” in the 1689. Every other difference seems to flow from that. Is that fair?
Hi Jim,
I’m not sure that the absence of the “good and necessary consequence” language in the Second London Confession is “all-important.” The men who wrote/edited the Second London Confession certainly seem to have employed the principle elsewhere in their theological writings. Anyhow, you might look at the responses by Richard Barcellos and Brandon Adams to CTC episode 234 (http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc234/).