Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
The speaker says the 1921 Confession is “problematic” because it uses penal/satisfaction atonement language and treats nonresistance and oaths as “restrictions,” calling it “not an improvement on Dortrecht”; if your church has used 1921, where do you see its framing affecting discipleship—either by strengthening obedience or by shrinking discipleship into a list of prohibitions?
Another way to ask: If your church has used the 1921 Confession, how has its wording shaped discipleship in your church? Has it helped people obey Jesus more, or has it shrunk discipleship into mainly a list of don’ts?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s critique, the 1921 framing can affect discipleship by turning significant teachings (like nonresistance and oaths) into a “restrictions” mindset, and by importing atonement language (“satisfaction,” “penalty”) that Dortrecht did not use. The transcript doesn’t document specific local outcomes, but it suggests the framing tends to narrow emphasis toward prohibited behaviors and contested doctrinal formulations.
- He states plainly: “I’m glad not to use it… I think that it’s problematic.”
- He identifies two main problems: “the theology of the atonement is problematic,” and “the way it limits things like non-resistance and the oath… to… ‘restrictions’ is problematic.”
- He says it is “really not an improvement on Dirkwright in my mind.”
- He notes 1921 introduces “satisfaction”: Christ “making satisfaction for man’s sins,” a concept “tied into a penal thing.”
- He contrasts Dortrecht: it uses “redemption language” and “never uses that terminology” of penalty/satisfaction.