# "Confessionalism is Protestants' Pope"



## nwink (Jun 6, 2012)

In light of the Stellman case recently of his departure for "Rome", I hear some people argue that Reformed people's confessionalism is like their "pope". They argue that Reformed people argue largely from the Confession such as in Leithart's trial, and thereby seem to imply that it's "infallible." What is the best way to address this fallacious line of thinking about the proper role of confessionalism in the church?

I mean, my thoughts are that it seems clear enough that the Confession is the doctrinal statement of Reformed denominations, so I'm confused why some people attack Reformed people over this issue since it's the denomination's stated beliefs!

(I DON'T want this to be a thread regarding Federal Vision or the trial issues so much as the proper role of confessionalism in the church)


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 6, 2012)

That would only hold true to the degree that a Confession clashes with Scripture. And certainly a Confession is NOT a substitute for the Bible itself, nor is it to be considered equal to, or superior to, the Bible. I don't think there's anybody here who holds to such a foolish position.

That being said, a scriptural Confession is a good thing, an important suppliment to the Christian. If the Confession is not in opposition to Scripture, then it should be commended and read, and no harm can come of having it.

And the dirty little secret is that those who are "anti-confessional" have _some_ sort of confession to which they hold, whether they admit to it or not. 

Check out this clever little video that addresses this issue (the subject of the video is creeds, but it applies to confessions as well): TYLPTL: Learning that Creeds Are Bad (Episode 10) - YouTube


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 6, 2012)

I'd recommend reading the Introductory Essay to Robert Shaw's exposition of the Westminster Confession. It gives a good explanation of what confessing means for the church and why it is necessary and inevitable. It's available online for free.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 6, 2012)

nwink said:


> In light of the Stellman case recently of his departure for "Rome", I hear some people argue that Reformed people's confessionalism is like their "pope". They argue that Reformed people argue largely from the Confession such as in Leithart's trial, and thereby seem to imply that it's "infallible." What is the best way to address this fallacious line of thinking about the proper role of confessionalism in the church?
> 
> I mean, my thoughts are that it seems clear enough that the Confession is the doctrinal statement of Reformed denominations, so I'm confused why some people attack Reformed people over this issue since it's the denomination's stated beliefs!
> 
> (I DON'T want this to be a thread regarding Federal Vision or the trial issues so much as the proper role of confessionalism in the church)



Ask then if they like the creeds and see if they attack them with the same vigor.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 6, 2012)

With regard to the Leithart trial, the issue was whether his teaching was in accord with the Confession he vowed to uphold. That is why there was argument from the Confession. 

It's very basic: if a prosecutor is given the task to accuse someone of violationg the laws of jurisdiction, he obviously has to argue from the laws of the jurisdiction. He isn't even arguing whether the law is right or wrong at that point, just whether it has been violated.

In a case of confessional church discipline, the primary "law" to argue from is the Confession.

As for the accusation itself, I think comes across as juvenile as "your mother wears Army boots." In either case, the statement is either not true, or if it were true, it is not an insult.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 6, 2012)

I think the thrust of the assertion is that a rigid form of confessionalism stunts the natural progress of doctrine. At least since the beginning of the modern period, there has been an understanding that church doctrine did not drop full-formed from the Apostles, but is a process of organic development. The last fifty years of Reformation research have revealed that Protestant theology, although in many ways a recovery of sublimated ideas from an earlier period of the church, is also heavily indebted to certain developments in late medievalism. Further, the theology of the Protestant confessions is not identical to the theology of the early Reformers, but is an outworking, systematization, and in some cases alteration of those ideas. 

So, for a denomination to tie itself irrevocably to a confession of faith, particularly a very detailed one, seems to inhibit its ability to continue to progress theologically. 

Also, there is a difference between the creeds and the confession. The creeds establish a basic _sine qua non_ of Christianity. They make no attempt to spell out everything a Christian should believe or how a church should conduct itself. The confessions of the modern period were aiming at something far more comprehensive.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 6, 2012)

We're talking about the PCA here. There's hardly anything like an irrevocable tie to the Westminster standards; I mean it's Swiss cheese with all the exceptions allowed now.
*Not to mention constitutionally there's no irrevocable tie; it can changed.


----------



## eqdj (Jun 6, 2012)

nwink said:


> ... my thoughts are that it seems clear enough that the Confession is the doctrinal statement of Reformed denominations, so I'm confused why some people attack Reformed people over this issue since it's the denomination's stated beliefs


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Jun 6, 2012)

The Pope is not a subordinate standard to the Romanist.
For reformed folks, the confessions are subordinate tools and if they were wrong we would throw them out.
We are satisfied, with the confession, that they do not contradict the word of God.

We must not "prove someone wrong" based on the confession, unless it is a question of vows. If a man makes an oath, he must either fulfill it or repent of it.


----------



## thbslawson (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm going to play the "Leithart's advocate"  here for moment. We affirm that the WCF is NOT equal with Scripture nor is it infallible, that's clear. So if this is the case, under what circumstances could the WCF be corporately "reevaluated" in light of Scripture to either reaffirm what it summarizes or correct anything that is perceived as being out of accord with Scripture? It seems that if someone were to call for this that it would be strongly opposed. So if we affirm that it is not a "paper pope", in what way do we corporately and continually in a practical and public way hold it under the scrutiny of Scripture? (alliteration unintended)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

Confessionalism will never be Popish. It can't even be like the Pope. *One is an Ecclesiastical office that the Scriptures no where confess*. What these guys are against is something else. 

The word _confession _(Greek _"homologeo") _means "to speak the same thing".

"I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good _confession..."_ 1 Timothy 6:13


"That if thou shalt _confess _with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth _confession _is made unto salvation". Romans 10:9-10


"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees _confess _both". Acts 23:8

Grace Covenant Church of Virginia Beach - Hampton Roads Confession of Faith​


----------



## JoannaV (Jun 6, 2012)

Confessionalism is in some ways opposite to the Pope because a Confession remains constant whereas the Pope's infallible statements can change!

I have seen some people in some situations who do argue over-much from their Confession when they should be arguing from the Bible. Which might just mean stating your position as the Confession states it and then presenting the Scripture proofs: hardly a radically difficult move. But it seems silly when a Christian asks you something to answer, "The LBCF says xyz" and then run away. That won't convince them Biblically of anything, nor will it lead them to confessionalism! That's the only little bit of truth I can see in that silly statement


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> I'm going to play the "Leithart's advocate"  here for moment. We affirm that the WCF is NOT equal with Scripture nor is it infallible, that's clear. So if this is the case, under what circumstances could the WCF be corporately "reevaluated" in light of Scripture to either reaffirm what it summarizes or correct anything that is perceived as being out of accord with Scripture? It seems that if someone were to call for this that it would be strongly opposed. So if we affirm that it is not a "paper pope", in what way do we corporately and continually in a practical and public way hold it under the scrutiny of Scripture? (alliteration unintended)



Why? To illustrate a point? ARE YOU SERIOUS? 

Let me remind everyone here that we admit that our Confessions have stood a test of Time. 

Let me also remind everyone that... 



> b. *Confessional Subscription: Officially, the Puritanboard is governed by the Westminster Standards and will acquiesce to them in ultimate matters of any controversies on the Puritanboard. Some of our moderators are Baptist and hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF). Others hold to the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and theCanons of Dordt).
> 
> c. Historic Creeds: All members of this board hold to the basic creeds of the church: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, and the Definitions of Chalcedon.
> 
> ...


*

Those are the rules..... Let me also restate....




Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## thbslawson (Jun 6, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to play the "Leithart's advocate"  here for moment. We affirm that the WCF is NOT equal with Scripture nor is it infallible, that's clear. So if this is the case, under what circumstances could the WCF be corporately "reevaluated" in light of Scripture to either reaffirm what it summarizes or correct anything that is perceived as being out of accord with Scripture? It seems that if someone were to call for this that it would be strongly opposed. So if we affirm that it is not a "paper pope", in what way do we corporately and continually in a practical and public way hold it under the scrutiny of Scripture? (alliteration unintended)
> ...



First, it was an honest question, because it's been honestly asked by people and needs to be addressed. Non-confessional people, including former Catholics and Orthodox, have pointed their fingers at this and have point blank said to me, "Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it." So the question is fair. 

Second, I think the incredulity at which even my hypothetical question was received only fuels the fires of Leithart's arguments (with which I don't agree by the way). When I've raised this question before in other circles it has raised the objection of "How dare you suggest such a thing." I should be able to discuss the need to answer such questions from "outsiders" without my motives being questioned.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 6, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> So, for a denomination to tie itself irrevocably to a confession of faith, particularly a very detailed one, seems to inhibit its ability to continue to progress theologically.



That is only true if it is taken for granted:
1. That the Confession itself cannot be altered under any circumstances (I suppose what you meant by irrevocably). I'm not aware of any denomination that has done that.
2. That doctrinal progress necessarily involves changing what has previously been confessed. I doubt it will be denied that Fairbairn and Vos did develop more fully things that were only seminally present in previous thought - but that didn't compel them to dissent with the Westminster Standards of the 3FU. In fact it would seem that *most* progress would not involve changing what has already been confessed, because truth is consistent and coherent. Much progress has been made in many ways since the Nicene Creed - but the Nicene Creed still stands as an accurate statement of our beliefs on the topics which it covers.


----------



## davenporter (Jun 6, 2012)

The Scripture is infallible, and the Holy Spirit's interpretation of the Scripture is infallible. Whereas the Confessions obviously are not infallible, they are useful insofar as they are faithful to the precepts taught in the Scriptures.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> "Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it."



First off let me restate what I have known..... 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.



You left that out. 

I teach more about the biblical relevance of the 66 books than you know. I had to learn it. I expect everyone to. Why the 66 books? Let us look at History and evidence. I have been attacked and taught on this topic. I will just at this point even refer to St. Jerome and others. I refer to St. Jerome for those who want to enquire on the Roman side. 




thbslawson said:


> Second, I think the incredulity at which even my hypothetical question was received only fuels the fires of Leithart's arguments (with which I don't agree by the way). When I've raised this question before in other circles it has raised the objection of "How dare you suggest such a thing." I should be able to discuss the need to answer such questions from "outsiders" without my motives being questioned.



I don't if the Church is informed as Leithart should be. The Confession and the Catechism's are quite well explained. When did any of those who claim them last read them? I find that a most problematic thing. I don't think they have. In fact... I am sure they haven't read them fully. They are wonderful and full expressions. What do you think Leithart has said that is relevant and biblical that the Confession of Scripture agrees with him on? What do you think Leithart has said and where the Bible and the Confession disagrees upon? Leithart says he disagrees with the Confession but is Confessional. He does not in my opinion. And I am not a Westminster California propagator. Do what I asked and remember........ 




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.


----------



## Philip (Jun 6, 2012)

I would answer Leithart by challenging him that if he believes the confession to be not in accord with Scripture on a fundamental point (ie: one where exception would challenge the basic structure) then in good conscience he should either a) resign from the PCA (and, in Leithart's case, I would suggest that he would be more at home across the Thames) b) advocate changing the confession.

I do not believe the confessions to be anything more than a subordinate standard which can be changed if they are found, on any point, not to reflect the clear teaching of Scripture. Leithart has the right idea with regard to the Bible, but the wrong idea with regard to church order and how to handle conflict with the confession. His view of confessionalism has more in common with the Anglican view of the 39 Articles than with historic Presbyterian and Reformed thought.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 6, 2012)

It is uncharitable to presume that when the question is raised about changing the confession, and those holding said confession object, that this is somehow because the document is considered infallible and unchangeable, instead of the simple fact that those objecting a proposed change, find the confession's statement remains a faithful statement of Scripture doctrine. Again, the mechanism is there to make changes; that it remains a conservative process is as it should be; i.e. changes should not be as easy as those of the French fashion. And again, I don't think the problem in our day is an over referencing of the confessions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

MR. COLDWELL, Thanks. Stated in the Standards and Confessions. *Even my own denomination has it's own Testimony where they disagree*. The Confession is not the Pope. It is what it is. But the RC Pope thing is out of bounds. One Man over Many... Even if it isn't tried and proven by Scripture or history. They (The Roman Catholics) oppose even the Old Covenant Scripts which the New Testify to and show fulfillment. There is a lot of scholarship and testimony to this stuff. John Calvin himself loved the Early Church Fathers.
.

Edited for link to Confession and Church Testimony....

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/images/documents/constitution2010.pdf


----------



## Philip (Jun 6, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> It is uncharitable to presume that when the question is raised about changing the confession



But this is exactly the problem: no change to the confession has been proposed. If Leithart wants to claim that the confession is out of accord with Scriptural teaching, then he should start gathering support for a change to it rather than challenging the confessional principle. The debate should be over what Scripture teaches and whether the confession is in accord with it (and I believe that it is in accord on this point) rather than whether confessionalism is a good principle.


----------



## thbslawson (Jun 6, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > "Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it."
> ...



Sorry, that was unintentional. 

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm not seeking to "modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions..." I'm asking how you defend against the charge of perceived infallibility by non-confessional (non-Reformed), or even new Christians. To some it _appears_ that we treat the Confessions as infallible, and one of their arguments is that we never scrutinize it. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I teach more about the biblical relevance of the 66 books than you know. I had to learn it. I expect everyone to. Why the 66 books? Let us look at History and evidence. I have been attacked and taught on this topic. I will just at this point even refer to St. Jerome and others. I refer to St. Jerome for those who want to enquire on the Roman side.


 



thbslawson said:


> Second, I think the incredulity at which even my hypothetical question was received only fuels the fires of Leithart's arguments (with which I don't agree by the way). When I've raised this question before in other circles it has raised the objection of "How dare you suggest such a thing." I should be able to discuss the need to answer such questions from "outsiders" without my motives being questioned.





PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't if the Church is informed as Leithart should be. The Confession and the Catechism's are quite well explained. When did any of those who claim them last read them? I find that a most problematic thing. I don't think they have. In fact... I am sure they haven't read them fully. They are wonderful and full expressions. What do you think Leithart has said that is relevant and biblical that the Confession of Scripture agrees with him on? What do you think Leithart has said and where the Bible and the Confession disagrees upon? Leithart says he disagrees with the Confession but is Confessional. He does not in my opinion. And I am not a Westminster California propagator. Do what I asked and remember........



I am not agreeing with Leithart. I thought I stated that clearly, hence my attempt at humor with the phrase "play Leithart's advocate". It means I'm going to ask a question that someone else would ask, not because I agree with the premise but because it's a question that needs to be accurately answered when asked. The question is, if we say that the Confessions are NOT infallible, in what practical ways do we demonstrate that by holding them accountable to Scripture? I think this is a fair question for a non-confessional, non-Reformed person to ask.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.



I agree wholeheartedly. But let me ask another tough question, what venue would a person have to present such "proof"? Would he be given a fair hearing?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

Philip. Have you read the report and the conclusion of the NWP?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

Sorry guys, I am closing this thread. This turned into an issue that is still being sought out by a Presbytery. The question was good. I believe it has been answered. Out of respect for the Church this discussion needs to stop because of where it has gone for now. I admit I have already made my conclusion and I might be incorrect. This isn't a Popish thing. It is a thing that has respect for Elders, and a Presbytery that is still in Session as many know. The end matter has not been decided. When it has we can discuss it then. The Court is still in Session as they say.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 6, 2012)

Agreed; I'm addressing the general question that seems to have been raised about changing the standards and how one should view those opposed to any particular change. 


Philip said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > It is uncharitable to presume that when the question is raised about changing the confession
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

This can stay open as a discussion as long as we are not going into the current situation concerning Leithart or the NWP. It is a current situation I believe that is headed for appeal. Well, that might not be the correct terminology. I believe that those involved were encouraged to not speak about it. 

The situation is still pending.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

I made this decision. I know how hot it is. Blame me and not Rich or the board.


----------



## KMK (Jun 6, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> I'm asking how you defend against the charge of perceived infallibility by non-confessional (non-Reformed), or even new Christians.



Are the charges being leveled at an individual or at a church/denomination?


----------



## Fly Caster (Jun 6, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > thbslawson said:
> ...





*"Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it." So the question is fair. *

I'm going to attempt to address something here, but know that I may not be using the correct terminology in making my point. If that's the case and someone else can see my point, any clarification will be appreciated.

When I was being examined for the office of deacon, one of the elders asked me to explain why the ministry of the church is said to be "ministerial and declarative, but not legislative." I was a little caught off guard, but my bumbling answer was acceptable-- "I guess it's because it isn't the job of the church to legislate."

I said that to say this-- It seems to me that the Confession *IS* always being "questioned", but not according to the prevailing, ever-changing opinion of whatever current wind blows. The Confession declares what scripture has already said, and that does not change. It is constantly "questioned," in a judicial sense, everytime someone comes to trial on charges of errant doctrine. I "question" it each time I read, and am not going to agree with something there that does not accord with scripture. It is "questioned" each time an elder teaches a class on the Confession and shows from the proof texts how it's statements are derived.

Before we going throwing the Confession before the pragmatic, whimsical trends of our day in order to "question" everything by counting noses to see what is true, we need to remember that about 150 men, most of them far more grounded that most of us are, met together over a period of 6 years to hash it out. And it's stood the test of time with little change for almost 400 years. Unlike the proclamations of a real Pope, who blurts out as authoritive whatever crosses his mind, these documents are carefully prepared and tested summarizations of scripture. Any "questioning," in a legislative sense, must not be done lightly.


----------



## thbslawson (Jun 6, 2012)

Fly Caster said:


> *"Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it." So the question is fair. *
> 
> I'm going to attempt to address something here, but know that I may not be using the correct terminology in making my point. If that's the case and someone else can see my point, any clarification will be appreciated.
> 
> ...



Yes! That's a great explanation! 

My point was not to cause contention, but to point out that if the charge of "paper popism" is levied against us, then we need to be prepared to defend it. My own experience is with people in the Russian world who have come out of Eastern Orthodoxy. They've come to relinquish the thought that the Patriarch of Moscow is infallible, only to be a little taken back when presented with the WCF, and raise the question "Wait a minute, I thought you believed in Scripture alone, what's this?" To a person who is either a new convert, coming from another denomination, or is a new Presbyterian, adherence to the confession could _appear_ confusing. My point was that we need to be able to explain _how_ it is not the same as Scripture. You did that well.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

Fly Caster said:


> When I was being examined for the office of deacon, one of the elders asked me to explain why the ministry of the church is said to be "ministerial and declarative, but not legislative."



I guess we need to define the term legislative. Does that mean the Church is not to be legislative? Maybe it isn't the Deacon's job. I don't know if that is true or not. But I do believe the Church is to be legislative as the GA, Presbytery, and Session. If one level is wrong it goes to the next.


----------



## Fly Caster (Jun 6, 2012)

Randy,

As I said, I'm aware that I may not be stating my point clearly, so please bear with me.

My elder was referring to a couple of statements in the BCO--



> All church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or by
> representation, is only ministerial and declarative since the Holy
> Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. No church
> judicatory may make laws to bind the conscience. All church
> ...



&



> 11-2. The jurisdiction of Church courts is only ministerial and declarative,
> and relates to the doctrines and precepts of Christ, to the order of the Church,
> and to the exercise of discipline...(cont.)



His point, and the point that I was trying to play off of in regards to "questioning" the Confession, is that the role of the Church is to declare what Scripture has already said. His use of the phrase "and not legislative" brought to mind the political current of the day in which our legislative houses change truth on a daily basis. My attempted point is that the Church may not act this way-- especially in regards to the topic at hand-- our Confession.

The flip-side of my attempted point is that, although we don't "question" the Confession in this manner, it still is not a valid claim for someone to say that we don't "question" it. I tried to state my reasons for that in the earlier post.

I don't want to get in over my head here, so will leave it here for other, better-qualified minds. Hope that helps.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 6, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> > When I was being examined for the office of deacon, one of the elders asked me to explain why the ministry of the church is said to be "ministerial and declarative, but not legislative."
> ...



It means that it is not for the church to make new law. It declares the received Word and ministers it in the church's context.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

SRoper said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Fly Caster said:
> ...



Then it isn't the Pope's decision as in a Hierarchy. The whole Church participates. No one man can declare an anathema. 

No one man can declare Justification by faith alone an invalid teaching of Scripture as has been done and martyred many.

Yes, I know the Pope listened to council. But the Church as a whole leaning upon the Bible said..... Acts 15 should be noted.

Read Calvin's Institutes. The Early Church Fathers are quoted in context along with the Scriptures which they didn't want to depart from.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 6, 2012)

To raise another but valid point. Confessionalism is the life blood of the church. I have been studying the history of the Evangelical movement lately and one thing stuck out to me that was one the biggest reasons that I could see why that the movement failed, at least in its current form, is that it had no Confessionalism. So sometimes a good defense is a good offense. If you compare the history of non-confessional churches and movements to confessional churches and movements you see a much better survival rate amongst Confessionalists. 

We still have the OPC, PCA, LCMS, etc. Even within the SBC there is a call for the future of the SBC to be confessional. I see so many emergent, evangelical, and independent churches start and fail in my home town. Why? I would argue that they have no confession, tradition, or history to unite around. So my answer to the OP would be that Confessionalim is not only different from Popism (I don’t think that’s a word but you get the point) but is essential to the well being of the church. I know this is my own opinion but I do think it’s valid.


----------



## Philip (Jun 6, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> I have been studying the history of the Evangelical movement lately and one thing stuck out to me that was one the biggest reasons that I could see why that the movement failed, at least in its current form, is that it had no Confessionalism.



I would say because it has had no confession.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 6, 2012)

Philip said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > I have been studying the history of the Evangelical movement lately and one thing stuck out to me that was one the biggest reasons that I could see why that the movement failed, at least in its current form, is that it had no Confessionalism.
> ...




Bingo Phillip, dead on. With no confession how could they ever attack Feminists and the like, especially with their lowest-common denominator theology (there are four things you need to be an Evangelical, only four!)? I know this is off topic but it proves my point, no confession no survival.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 6, 2012)

I know many Confessional Churches that still exist. Reformed Baptist's remained true to their roots. Look at the Church in the Reformed Presbyterian tradition and the Particular Baptist who remain true like Gill and Spurgeon's Tabernacle. I see many holding to Boyce's Theology and I know who haved remained more firm. They have changed a bit maybe but they hold to their roots and teaching. Look at the Succeeders and the Reformed Presbyterian's. They came out of very hard times and remained a true witness to the God's Glory.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 6, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I know many Confessional Churches that still exist. Reformed Baptist's remained true to their roots. Look at the Church in the Reformed Presbyterian tradition and the Particular Baptist who remain true like Gill and Spurgeon's Tabernacle. I see many holding to Boyce's Theology and I know who haved remained more firm. They have changed a bit maybe but they hold to their roots and teaching. Look at the Succeeders and the Reformed Presbyterian's. They came out of very hard times and remained a true witness to the God's Glory.



I agree, are you responding to my posts or some other post? Without some context it is is hard for me to understand your post, my fault not your's.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 7, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> To raise another but valid point. Confessionalism is the life blood of the church. I have been studying the history of the Evangelical movement lately and one thing stuck out to me that was one the biggest reasons that I could see why that the movement failed, at least in its current form, is that it had no Confessionalism. So sometimes a good defense is a good offense. If you compare the history of non-confessional churches and movements to confessional churches and movements you see a much better survival rate amongst Confessionalists.
> 
> We still have the OPC, PCA, LCMS, etc. Even within the SBC there is a call for the future of the SBC to be confessional. I see so many emergent, evangelical, and independent churches start and fail in my home town. Why? I would argue that they have no confession, tradition, or history to unite around. So my answer to the OP would be that Confessionalim is not only different from Popism (I don’t think that’s a word but you get the point) but is essential to the well being of the church. I know this is my own opinion but I do think it’s valid.



James, what do you mean that the evangelical movement failed? That it failed to achieve its goals? That it's unhealthy? Or that it ceased/is ceasing to exist? I ask because your second paragraph frames the issue in terms of continued existence. You say we "still have" certain denominations and that many evangelical churches "start and fail."

I don't know if continued existence is really a compelling argument. Many confessional denominations are surviving in name only, with barely a handful of churches clinging to a highly-specific legacy. I would be more impressed if you said they continue to exert influence on the wider ecclesiastical and social scene, since I think that gets to the heart of many people's objections to confessionalism. Within our little world of Reformed churches, it's pretty clear that the larger denominations are the ones who take confessionalism a bit less centrally to their core identity. The PC(USA) is still the largest Reformed denomination in the US, and even at its current rate of decline, it could still be decades before any other Reformed denomination catches up. The PCA is the largest Reformed denomination that is not in decline, and it is confessional, but I wouldn't say confessional-ism is the beating heart of the PCA. The next largest ones are the RCA and the CRC, hardly confessional. The EPC is nipping at their heels. 

You have to go pretty far down the list before you find a denomination where the confession is really the lifeblood of the denomination, and when we do get to those churches, many of them are numerically stagnant or declining. The OPC stands out a bit, I guess. They have experienced consistent albeit very slow growth since their founding, and I think through their seminary professors and publishing arms they reach out to a good bit of the American church. But really, the demographic data tells me that if confessionalism is the core of your denomination, you're likely to be very tiny, not particularly ethnically diverse, and not very influential on the broader ecclesiastical or world scene. All that doesn't mean confessionalism is wrong, but I think it challenges the way you framed your argument.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 7, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanCovenanter said:
> ...



Randy, I don't understand what you are getting at or what it has to do with my response.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 7, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> James, what do you mean that the evangelical movement failed? That it failed to achieve its goals? That it's unhealthy? Or that it ceased/is ceasing to exist? I ask because your second paragraph frames the issue in terms of continued existence. You say we "still have" certain denominations and that many evangelical churches "start and fail."
> 
> I don't know if continued existence is really a compelling argument. Many confessional denominations are surviving in name only, with barely a handful of churches clinging to a highly-specific legacy. I would be more impressed if you said they continue to exert influence on the wider ecclesiastical and social scene, since I think that gets to the heart of many people's objections to confessionalism. Within our little world of Reformed churches, it's pretty clear that the larger denominations are the ones who take confessionalism a bit less centrally to their core identity. The PC(USA) is still the largest Reformed denomination in the US, and even at its current rate of decline, it could still be decades before any other Reformed denomination catches up. The PCA is the largest Reformed denomination that is not in decline, and it is confessional, but I wouldn't say confessional-ism is the beating heart of the PCA. The next largest ones are the RCA and the CRC, hardly confessional. The EPC is nipping at their heels.
> 
> You have to go pretty far down the list before you find a denomination where the confession is really the lifeblood of the denomination, and when we do get to those churches, many of them are numerically stagnant or declining. The OPC stands out a bit, I guess. They have experienced consistent albeit very slow growth since their founding, and I think through their seminary professors and publishing arms they reach out to a good bit of the American church. But really, the demographic data tells me that if confessionalism is the core of your denomination, you're likely to be very tiny, not particularly ethnically diverse, and not very influential on the broader ecclesiastical or world scene. All that doesn't mean confessionalism is wrong, but I think it challenges the way you framed your argument.



I can see your point, my post didn't clarify enough. The Evangelical movement began as a critical reaction to both Liberalism and Fundamentalism. It started out as a conservative movement as well. As it progressed though it became more and more divided to the point now that Evangelical can mean nearly anything. Open Theists, Feminists, Post-Conservatives, all claim the mantle of “evangelical”. All of these positions are considered “evangelical” by Christianity Today, the magazine of Evangelicals. 

When conservative Evangelicals criticize these positions sometimes they admit that they are Evangelicals, but not always. Also when they do claim that some view is outside the fold I always ask says who? There is no central body or confession that decides what an “evangelical” is. There is a sociological answer to this that came up with 4 things that all Evangelicals have in common. My point is the movement became liberal in the end, which again it was a reaction against. 

My point, that I should have elaborated, is that non-confessional churches and movements tend to become so liberal as to cease to be true churches. I don not now believe that the PC (USA) is a true Christian denomination. I believe that there are many true churches within that denomination but the denomination as a whole is lost. When did they go down hill? When they gave up confessional fidelity they slid towards Liberalism. The same is true for Evangelicalism, when the conservatives wanted to distinguish themselves from the broader “evangelical” movement they called themselves “Confessing Evangelicals”. 

So per the OP we can distinguish ourselves from Popism by pointing out that our confessions can change in theory, the official teaching of the Catholic and Papal law cannot. We can also point out how movements and churches that abandoned or never had a confession went into Liberalism eventually. If the PCA goes down the same road and completely abandons confessional fidelity than it too will slide into Liberalism.


----------



## Dwimble (Jun 7, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> ...only to be a little taken back when presented with the WCF, and raise the question "Wait a minute, I thought you believed in Scripture alone, what's this?" To a person who is either a new convert, coming from another denomination, or is a new Presbyterian, adherence to the confession could _appear_ confusing.


This is absolutely true, and from my limited experience (having spent the majority of my Christian life until recent years in non-reformed churches) it seems to be missed often in some circles, and I can understand why. If you have lived in a Reformed environment for a very long time, the way the confessions are used and talked about can be taken for granted, with little thought to how that is perceived by others. It is common on this board and other places for a question of "what does the scripture say about such and such?" or "Is it wrong to do this...?" to be immediately answered with a quote from the WCF rather than from scripture. Now, if you understand what the confessions are, their history, why they are used, and so on, then that's perfectly fine. But to someone who knows nothing (or very little) of that, it looks an awful lot like someone quoting a pope, apocryphal book, extra-biblical source, etc. as the authoritative answer to a question. That can be very confusing or disheartening to some...exactly like you said, "_Wait a minute, I thought you believed in Scripture alone, what's this?_"

Having been in the Reformed community for a number of years now I understand the difference, but even I still get mildly irritated occasionally when I ask someone what the scripture says about something and then the instant response I get is a chapter and verse quote from the confession rather than scripture. I'm sometimes tempted to say, "I didn't ask you what the WCF says about it, I asked you what the _scriptures_ say about it. There is a difference." I know a few people whom I see answer questions this way constantly, and it often makes me wonder if they ever actually put down their WCF once in awhile and read a bible, because the impression they leave is that they know the WCF incredibly well, far better than they know the actual scriptures of which the confessions speak. When someone quotes the WCF constantly, almost to the exclusion of scripture, how can it fail to create the impression that he, in practice, views that as equal to or above scripture?


----------



## JM (Jun 7, 2012)

Nah, not pope...maybe Sanhedrin? 

If the confession is the final interpreter or the clearest expression of the faith and expresses without error...how isn't it?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 7, 2012)

SRoper said:


> Randy, I don't understand what you are getting at or what it has to do with my response.



Sorry Scott, I was just doing a poor job of bringing the conversation back to the original topic. Your answer was very sufficient.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 7, 2012)

Dwimble said:


> When someone quotes the WCF constantly, almost to the exclusion of scripture, how can it fail to create the impression that he, in practice, views that as equal to or above scripture?



Isn't it because they are a good summary of scripture? I don't really know anyone who quotes the WCF constantly. Everyone I know actually try to use the Scripture. But when the Confession can be used it is used because it is a good complete thought on topics. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2012)

Confessions of faith are a salvific requirement.



> Rom 10:9,10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. *10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.



Where does the Bible ever say you should not hold to a confession of faith? Maybe I don't understand the argument. It sounds puerile to me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 7, 2012)

JM said:


> Nah, not pope...maybe Sanhedrin?
> 
> If the confession is the final interpreter or the clearest expression of the faith and expresses without error...how isn't it?



Jason, 
I am not fully understanding you here. Are you saying that the Confessions are in the place of the Sanhedrin? 

BTW, Rich preached a sermon that I have listened to three times that is very humbling and I believe expresses what we believe here on the Puritanboard. 
By Whose Authority? - SermonAudio.com


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2012)

Dwimble said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > ...only to be a little taken back when presented with the WCF, and raise the question "Wait a minute, I thought you believed in Scripture alone, what's this?" To a person who is either a new convert, coming from another denomination, or is a new Presbyterian, adherence to the confession could _appear_ confusing.
> ...



I think two problems are identified by this post:

1. The problem of those who don't understand the Scriptures or the Confessions and so they'll sort of implicitly trust what the Confessions say on a subject because they do not yet have the understanding of the Scriptures to answer a question and will default to the Confession. In one sense, this is not unique. Most people that go to Church in any other faith community are ignorant of the Scriptures or that there is even a coherence of the themes. Many will simply say: "My pastor teaches the Bible..." by which they mean that he is using the Bible and coming to conclusions but it's not as if they're doing any study of the Scriptures themselves, are trained in exegesis, or are trained in any way to coherently organize the principles that they would derive even if they did know the Scriptures. In that sense, just like the person that defaults to the Confessions, they are defaulting to (in many cases) a very shallow exegesis (or even eisogesis) by a Pastor and implicitly believing that he's just teaching "...the Bible." For example, how many times must we hear someone say that John 3:16 clearly closes the case on the nature and extent of the atonement?

I don't think it's out of bounds for a person to trust his leaders while they are working things out and they are going to default to who they trust. The advantage of a Confession over "...my pastor says..." is that there is quite a bit of rigor in the the Confessional documents. They hang together and the homework can be checked. That said, it ultimately does not releive any person from appehending some key truths and growing in understanding of them.

2. Now I said that two problems are identified by your statement. I would say that the second one is the answer that you expect a "...what does the Scripture say?"

Now, to be fair, I would agree that we need to answer that question but when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for understanding the seasons and not understanding the Scriptures, He's not making the point that they were able to understand the weather patterns based on the Scriptures but by organizing the Revelation they had been given by God through natural revelation and making valid observations that a red sky at night indicates it will be a clear evening.

The point of this is that the Truth contained in the Scriptures is actually not completely found by "prooftexting" from the Scriptures. I just gave one example where the "light of nature" or reason is used with something Christ said that helps us understand the broader point. There is a problem with some who demand something from the Scripture where part of the demand is that the entire basis of a thing is going to be found by citing 2-3 verses and it will explain in full the reason why something has been concluded. People who demand a "proof text or it's not in the Bible" standard are actually going beyond the Scriptures themselves that demand the application of our reason to what Scripture has revealed to us. The Trinity is an example of applying the propositional content of many seemingly insignificant passages of Scripture with the obvious Scriptures and coming to a conclusion about what God has revealed about Himself.

Now this does not mean that we use reason apart from the Scripture but it means that the Scripture reveals the special revelation by which, with the illumination of the Spirit, we use reason to discern God's truth. Consequently, when Luther refused to recant he demanded that he be convinced by Scripture _and_ plain reason because he was not merely "prooftexting" that the Church was in error but had the reasonable expectation that a case could be made about something.

I'm in the midst of studying for a licensure exam. I can actually use the Scriptures to build a case for sanctification but, frankly, the work has been done and I agree with it. If someone asks me to tell me what the Scriptures teach on Sanctification, I'm going to quote the Confession. Why? Because one thing you learn when you learn more and more is that one of the beauties of some learned men is that they become much more succinct and elegant in their presentation of a truth and articulate it in a way that says something better than you can say yourself. Also, the WLC "covers the bases" in such an amazingly comprehensive way for the commandments of God that I would be hard pressed to reproduce that work without significant labor every single time. Can I explain it? Yes. If someone asks me to qualify a point within it I'll explain the point. At some point, however, there has to be a distillation of volumes of text because if you ask me about the second commandment, I could refer you to Durham but are you really going to follow everything he says?

OK, let me break away from your concern and answer the OP a bit.

I think the essential point that Confessionalism is the Protestant's pope is expected from a Chick tract. I don't expect much from some who would come to that conclusion who are not really engaging their brain to a problem.

Are there people who abuse the intent of the Confessions? Of course. But that's not the fault of a document that is intended to systematically derive doctrines after careful exegesis and put the data together carefully.

Are their Churchmen who default to the Confession because they don't understand it? Yes, but again that says more about them than whether a careful study of how it all hangs together will prove that the Confessions are accurate summaries of the faith.

I certainly have a problem with our collective sloth in understanding what we say we confess together as a Church. Guilty.

On the other hand, I have a grave concern with those who claim that there's a problem with Confessions when what they're really arguing for is a postmodern deconstruction of the Confessions. Newsflash: It is actually possible to determine *what* the Confessions are confessing about the Scriptures. There are records of how they formed these ideas and there is history behind it. Our problem today is more on the end that men depart from what the Confessions actually are communicating in human language and they believe that the text is a playground by which they can claim to be confessing to be teaching what the Church confesses when it is as clear as day that they have departed radically from them.

When challenged by men who *do* understand what the Confessions teach and can demonstrate how the system hangs together and that it is all derived from exegesis and GNC, then it's very easy in this culture to press the Easy Button and say: "The Confession is your Pope. _I_ believe in the Scriptures"

We say: "No, you do not for if you confessed what the Scriptures teach then you would not be teaching this error. That's why we asked you what you believed the Scriptures taught when we ordained you because we were convinced that this was the nature of Justification and, at one time, you confessed the same."

The Easy Button is just another form of sloth mixed with dishonesty. Any man who is ordained in the PCA should have been equipped enough to understand what he was confessing before he took an oath that he believed that the system of doctrine was an accurate summary of careful exegesis combined with good and necessary consequence. As others have noted, it's not enough to simply claim that others are following a paper pope when they've gone through the painstaking process to study the issues and come to the same conclusions as the Westminster standards. One needs to actually show that the Standards teach what they're proposing and, if not, they need to show how the Confessions are in error by the Scriptures and GNC and not merely erect strawmen that is beneath the office of any man who should be equipped to rightly divide truth.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 7, 2012)

Being a Baptist, I can understand how some people could view confessionalism as holding to something above and beyond the Bible. But a confession is a good and profitable thing because it ensures that there is agreement amongst the faithful. The early church was very big on creeds and confessions, this is why Paul prefaces so many of his statements with the phrase, "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance."


----------



## Beau Michel (Jun 7, 2012)

For Protestants the Confessions are subordinate to the Scripures not placed above them,as in Rome where the Pope is placed above the Scriptures.


----------



## Philip (Jun 7, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The Easy Button is just another form of sloth mixed with dishonesty. Any man who is ordained in the PCA should have been equipped enough to understand what he was confessing before he took an oath that he believed that the system of doctrine was an accurate summary of careful exegesis combined with good and necessary consequence. As others have noted, it's not enough to simply claim that others are following a paper pope when they've gone through the painstaking process to study the issues and come to the same conclusions as the Westminster standards. One needs to actually show that the Standards teach what they're proposing and, if not, they need to show how the Confessions are in error by the Scriptures and GNC and not merely erect strawmen that is beneath the office of any man who should be equipped to rightly divide truth.



And for this to happen, we need to educate laymen on the confession, its positions, and the Biblical reasoning behind it and so that such discussions could, in fact, take place. 

The other caution that we must have is to recognize the diversity of belief and practice that may legitimately exist within a confessional framework.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2012)

Philip said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > The Easy Button is just another form of sloth mixed with dishonesty. Any man who is ordained in the PCA should have been equipped enough to understand what he was confessing before he took an oath that he believed that the system of doctrine was an accurate summary of careful exegesis combined with good and necessary consequence. As others have noted, it's not enough to simply claim that others are following a paper pope when they've gone through the painstaking process to study the issues and come to the same conclusions as the Westminster standards. One needs to actually show that the Standards teach what they're proposing and, if not, they need to show how the Confessions are in error by the Scriptures and GNC and not merely erect strawmen that is beneath the office of any man who should be equipped to rightly divide truth.
> ...



Yes to both but both ideas are not new to the Reformed faith. The Confessions don't speak to everything.


----------



## JM (Jun 7, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jason,
> I am not fully understanding you here. Are you saying that the Confessions are in the place of the Sanhedrin?
> 
> BTW, Rich preached a sermon that I have listened to three times that is very humbling and I believe expresses what we believe here on the Puritanboard.
> By Whose Authority? - SermonAudio.com



Sorry brother, I was just being funny. The church gathered to write the confession(s) and their confession has authority, it is profitable and we abide by it's statements as our standard of faith and practice. If I'm not mistaken this was the practice of the Sanhedrin and the early church.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 7, 2012)

> WCF 1.4: "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."
> 
> 1.10: "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."



The churched confess the unique, primary, magisterial authority of holy Scripture. In the nature of things, the church and confession must always submit to and serve Scripture, which is the warrant for her ministry.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 7, 2012)

JM said:


> If I'm not mistaken this was the practice of the Sanhedrin and the early church.



The Standards have Scripture as total basis and bow to God's word. Maybe those who follow the Tulmad and Gemara do also. Listen to Rich's Sermon. I posted it above. There is a sense that we are to obey our Elders. But the Testimony of Scripture even tells us to make an appeal to them as Fathers. They may be wrong. Certainly Nicodemus who was a member of the Sanhedrin was not.


----------



## mvdm (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't think the original question was whether confessionalism is appropriate, necessary and good. We agree it is. As I see it, the question was, in the context of the Stellman situation, as to whether we confessionalists can abuse and elevate such to the level of infallibility. If Stellman had been inculcated with such a view of the confessions , it would not be surprising that he could then discard a standard he no longer finds "infallible" for another infallible authority {Rome, perhaps?}. 

As Prof. Strange pointed out in a different thread, there is a danger in forgetting the work of the Holy Spirit and overly objectifying fallible standards.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jun 8, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> . . . We affirm that the WCF is NOT equal with Scripture nor is it infallible, that's clear. So if this is the case, under what circumstances could the WCF be corporately "reevaluated" in light of Scripture to either reaffirm what it summarizes or correct anything that is perceived as being out of accord with Scripture? It seems that if someone were to call for this that it would be strongly opposed. So if we affirm that it is not a "paper pope", in what way do we corporately and continually in a practical and public way hold it under the scrutiny of Scripture? (alliteration unintended)



I answer this question by asserting that while in Roman orthodoxy one cannot appeal to Scripture over against the magisterium and especially the pope speaking ex cathedra, in Confessional Protestantism the Confessions themselves not only are designed to submit themselves to Scripture but also indirectly provide for the possibility that an exegetically solid appeal might require church courts to amend the Confessions. In fact, the American Presbyterians amended the WCF in 1789, making changes they believed had biblical support. For the Reformed Confessions follow the lead of the WCF in holding that:

WCF 1.4: "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

WCF 1.10: "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."[/QUOTE]

The range of what must be examined included "all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits." The word "all" means that confessions are included in what must be examined. How do we hear the voice of the Spirit? WCF 1:6 gives us the answer

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

Or as Dr. Clark put it: 



R. Scott Clark said:


> The churched confess the unique, primary, magisterial authority of holy Scripture. In the nature of things, the church and confession must always submit to and serve Scripture, which is the warrant for her ministry.


----------



## dudley (Jun 8, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> That would only hold true to the degree that a Confession clashes with Scripture. And certainly a Confession is NOT a substitute for the Bible itself, nor is it to be considered equal to, or superior to, the Bible. I don't think there's anybody here who holds to such a foolish position.
> 
> That being said, a scriptural Confession is a good thing, an important suppliment to the Christian. If the Confession is not in opposition to Scripture, then it should be commended and read, and no harm can come of having it.
> 
> ...



Amen Brother J. Dean! To be Protestant means we protest heresy and false teachings which are contrary to scripture. To be Protestant means we look to scripture alone as our final authority. We proclaim the truth and we renounce the pope and the church of Rome which teaches heresy.

Grace alone , Faith alone , Christ alone , Scripture alone , all glory and honor is due to God alone. 

I am an ex Roman catholic as many know and I see scripture alone as our only and final authority. I would have nothing to do with a protestant pope , even on paper only, no more than I will have anything to do with the Pope of Rome. I renounce popery in every form and I think as protestants we all do.

I follow the WCF but as a Presbyterian I submit in every way to the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our Church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and I am instructed and led by those confessions. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) was Written by the Westminster Assembly at the call of Parliament together with the long and short catechisms of the Reformed faith and heavily influenced by Reynolds. It is written in the context of the English Civil War and as a response to high church Anglicanism. The central doctrines of this and the long and short catechisms are the sovereignty of God and the authority and proper interpretation of Scripture. However the confessions are guides and in no way are they or were ever intended as a "paper pope" to Protestants.

I read the scriptures like Romans 8 as the word of God and our only and final authority. I proclaim that I am a Protestant and The Confessions are my guide as a Protestant and as a Presbyterian in how to read the scriptures the Presbyterian way, the way of the Reformed faith.

Romans 8 (King James Version)
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 
5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 
7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 
8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 
10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 
11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 
12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 
13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 
14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 
15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 
17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
King James Version (KJV)

The truths we Confess as Reformed Protestants are in the scriptures; and the WCF and all the Reformed Confessions in the Book of Confessions become a Layman’s Guide in helping understand the meaning of scripture. The above verses from Roman 8 :1-17 when understanding the Reformed confessions help us with the assistance of the Holy Spirit to comprehend the meaning of the scripture. The above verses are now easier to understand if we look to the confessions as a guide, not as the authority or “a pope” for only the scripture itself is our only and final and ultimate authority. 

Romans 8:1-7 explain to us that a radical change is expected and required when a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ. When no change becomes apparent, then we have to question if there has been a genuine conversion or if the one who was truly saved understands God’s Word concerning sanctification and discipleship. Charles Colson, in his excellent book, Loving God, entitles one of his chapters, “A Christian Gangster?” Gangster Mickey Cohen had made a profession of faith, and it was hoped that he had sincerely come to faith in Jesus Christ. Time evidenced that Mr. Cohen wanted to continue to live as a gangster with the assurance that he would go to heaven when he died. For a man like Cohen, genuine conversion to Christianity would require some radical changes in his mindset, motivation, and methods.

That change is both necessary and radical for anyone who comes to faith in Jesus Christ. The libertine extreme seeks to minimize the change which is required, wanting to avoid any rules or commands. They want to speak only of grace and not of righteousness or God’s Law. They want to continue to live in sin just as they did as unbelievers. This view is described and rejected in Romans 6. The legalist, on the other hand, wants to bury the convert to Christ with rules and regulations. He does speak of righteousness and holiness, but of the kind men define which is accomplished by human effort and not emulated by the divine. Paul discusses this point of view in Romans 7, showing legalism to be both sinful and impossible.

I think the important point here is that we must always be on our guard as Protestants to not bury the convert to Christ with rules and regulations. It is just that;plus “the rules and regulations of men and as such the Roman pontiff, who I renounce as did the reformers , who attempt to bury the convert to Christ with man made regulations and laws“. We must be on our guard to never become in any way like “the papists’ We are Protestants because we protest the ways of the pope and the papist church of Rome.

WCF VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. 

We must always remember as Protestants that there is only one head of Christ’s church here on earth and it is Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior , not any man or any pope, in the flesh or on paper! When and if we forget that; we are no longer truly protestants. To be Protestant means we protest heresy and false teachings which are contrary to scripture. To be Protestant means we look to scripture alone as our final authority. We proclaim the truth and we renounce popery in any way or form! 

I am thankful to God every day that by His grace alone , no merit of mine , I am now a Protestant!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 8, 2012)

dudley said:


> The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) was Written by the Westminster Assembly at the call of Parliament together with the following two catechisms and heavily influenced by Reynolds.



I am not as familiar with Reynolds. I do know that a young man named George Gillespie was a major factor as were Eight Scottish Commissioned men. 

Please read the link below.

Scotland & the Westminster Confession of Faith - Professor Douglas MacMillan » Reformation Scotland


----------

