# Confession = Scripture



## bookslover (Sep 8, 2007)

Lee Irons has an interesting post with the above title at his blog (www.upper-register.com/blog). It sounds like some of the discussions we've had around here. Scroll down just a bit.


----------



## MW (Sep 8, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Lee Irons has an interesting post with the above title at his blog (www.upper-register.com/blog). It sounds like some of the discussions we've had around here. Scroll down just a bit.



Interesting. So "confession doesn't equal scripture." Instead, "confession doesn't equal scripture" equals scripture. In other words, he replaces the church's confession with his own.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 8, 2007)

So do you think our beloved Green baggins is actually putting the Confession on par with Scripture or is he saying something different? 

I think this person is misrepresenting our dear Greenbaggins.



> Considering the oath that all ordained ministers take in the PCA that the Westminster Standards contain THE system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture (BCO 21-5, question 2, emphasis mine), is it not fair to state that if one is considering the Confession’s teaching on certain issues that one is also considering the Scriptures?



I don't think for a minute Pastor Keister is saying that the Confession is on the same level of Scripture but that when you consider the Confession you are also considering what the Scriptures say. The Confession is a reflection of the Scriptures. He is twisting Pastor Lane Keisters words and thoughts In my humble opinion. Read Greenbaggins blog first before you read this persons critique. 

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/response-to-reggie-kidd-part-1/

Context helps.


----------



## SEAGOON (Sep 8, 2007)

Lee Irons and I agree on many things but this is not one of them. His post removes all meaning from Confessional Subscription and reduces it from the level of a solemn vow to a limited agreement on certain principles. Additionally, it reduces the Confession to the level of a commentary on the bible which we can privately agree and disagree with as we see fit. Ultimately, not only would this view have little or no value in conforming ministers to a uniform testimony and practice, it would actually bind ministers not to a relatively unchanging constitution but to the ever changing theological opinions of the majority in the GA and thus remove the value of a constitution in safeguarding the rights of the minority. This is because whenever there was a doctrinal disagreement, we would need to form a study committee, have them create their own theological study of the subject and then we'd decide the matter based on what the majority at the moment thought of the study. Under this system, discipline cases would become few and far between simply because of the enormous effort involved with each one. 

Instead, the greater wisdom of our forebears was that we should have a Constitution that we agreed was an accurate summary of the doctrines taught in scripture. Thus in a matter of discipline all we had to do was compare the teaching of the officer to our fixed standard. If we come to feel that the Confession was no longer accurate on a point, we change the Confession, not have a Confession that we hold to be no more binding on officers than say a copy of Calvin's Institutes.

Or as Thornwell put it:



> *
> Thornwell On the Subject of Subscription*
> From: The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, D.D., LL.D. Richmond, .VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1871-75
> 
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 8, 2007)

Awesome Pastor Webb


----------



## MW (Sep 8, 2007)

> *The Constitution is*, with Presbyterians, the accredited interpretation of the Word of God. It is not an inference from it, nor an addition to it, but *the very system of the Bible*.



Now THAT'S a Presbyterian speaking Presbyterianism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2007)

SEAGOON said:


> Lee Irons and I agree on many things but this is not one of them. His post removes all meaning from Confessional Subscription and reduces it from the level of a solemn vow to a limited agreement on certain principles. Additionally, it reduces the Confession to the level of a commentary on the bible which we can privately agree and disagree with as we see fit. Ultimately, not only would this view have little or no value in conforming ministers to a uniform testimony and practice, it would actually bind ministers not to a relatively unchanging constitution but to the ever changing theological opinions of the majority in the GA and thus remove the value of a constitution in safeguarding the rights of the minority. This is because whenever there was a doctrinal disagreement, we would need to form a study committee, have them create their own theological study of the subject and then we'd decide the matter based on what the majority at the moment thought of the study. Under this system, discipline cases would become few and far between simply because of the enormous effort involved with each one.
> 
> Instead, the greater wisdom of our forebears was that we should have a Constitution that we agreed was an accurate summary of the doctrines taught in scripture. Thus in a matter of discipline all we had to do was compare the teaching of the officer to our fixed standard. If we come to feel that the Confession was no longer accurate on a point, we change the Confession, not have a Confession that we hold to be no more binding on officers than say a copy of Calvin's Institutes.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the Thornwell quote!


----------

