Confessionalism can lead to sectarianism, have you ever thought of that? Maybe you’re a “confessional Christian,” a Christian who sees a set of “Confessions” (Belgic Confession, London Baptist Confession, Helvetic Confession, Book of Common Prayer, Westminster Confession, etc.) as codifying Orthodox Christian doctrine. The consequence, if followed to strictly (and it is by over-zealous 
adherents), is that any “Christian” who does not affirm these disparate Confessions as representative of “orthodoxy;” these “Christians” are either seen as heterodox, at best, or not true Christians at worst.
I would suggest, that elevating various “Reformed” confessions as equal to what have been called Ecumenical councils (which confessions of sorts were born out of), is certainly off the mark. I say this because those “Ecumenical councils” (Nicaea, Chalcedon, Constantinople, etc.), that have been termed as such, are indeed labeled this way because they dealt with issues around who God is, who Christ is, the Trinity, etc.; the Confessions of the ‘Reformed’ church’s are different, they aren’t universally oriented. What I mean is, is that they aren’t articulating who God is (per se); instead they are articulating points on salvation that “Christians” can actually disagree over and still be Christian. This is unlike the “Ecumenical council’s” determinations, in the sense that a Christian could not deny who Christ was/is and still be considered to be operating within an ‘orthodox’ Christian realm.
Now I’m not saying that the “Ecumenical councils” trump scripture, instead that insofar as they faithfully capture who the scriptures disclose God to be; then their articulations are indeed binding — of course this same line of thinking should be applied to the “Reformed Confessions.” Again, though, I see a difference between the Ecumenical and Reformed Confessions (the former being universally oriented, and the latter being particularly and idiosyncratically oriented).
Attaching one’s self too firmly to a specific humanly-devised statement of faith does seem to create division. I’ve often wondered if some of the factions are truly necessary.
Would you mind explaining the difference between “orthodox” (I assume this is good) and “heterodox”? I’ve seen the latter used as though it’s a dirty word, yet wonder if I may fall into this category as my Christian background is certainly not confessionally-pedigreed.
I assume that heterodoxy is not equivalent to heresy?
You describe fairly well here what’s called in other circles a “loose subscriptionist.” I think you’re right, so long as we don’t veer off in the unhelpful direction of “No creed but Christ!”
Confessions potentially serve a great purposeβa purpose that generations later is often forgotten, as ensuing generations treat the confessions like virtual words from God and subsequently see those who demur, as you write, as heterodox or worse. The original purpose of these particular Reformed confessions? To get as many people as possible to align themselves (loosely) under the banner of a general confession in order to consolidate influence and power. Not a bad idea, when the alternative is diaspora and death.
Heterodox is a nicer way of saying heretic; actually it’s not as strong as heretic — depending on the context — it might be someone who is off on a “secondary” issue vs. an “essential” issue (but these are often conflated, so heterodox). This is the way I understand its usage, anyway. You can do a google check and get the definition that way too. π
Chris,
I don’t really have a problem with the historical point of the Confessions; it’s how they’ve become situated, culturally today, that bothers me, often. But yes, good perspective on the “history” point.