# Discernment and Interpretation of Confessional Issues



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 19, 2013)

Solving the Case of the Missing Mojo

Here is the latest article from "The Aquila Report" on the questions of confessional subscription and things of "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" importance. 

There have been several articles on this subject in the last several months. Here is a link to the last discussion we had on this authors last article.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 19, 2013)

So the problem, for example, is six day creationists are wrong headed because they are allowing the broader cultural controversy of Darwinism to push their view of 6x24 as confessional, but it is not the case that broader cultural views are pushing an agenda of "reading out" six day creation from the doctrinal standards?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Mar 19, 2013)

If we receive the Confession as statements of Biblical doctrine, what is there to critique? It seems that our view of sin, righteousness, judgment and reality ought to flow from the Scripture to the world around us. The Confession, In my humble opinion is a "directory" of how to do that. The proposition that six day creationism is a political reaction rather than an interpretation of Scripture seems like an attempt to "ghetto-ize" that understanding--relegating it to its own context only, apart from the "real world". 

As for primary, secondary, and tertiary issues, they do exist in the confession as "acceptable confessional parameters". So, both supralapsarians and infralapsarians and subscribe in good conscience, both amillennial, and postmillenial, and some other issues as well. In my studies I learned that the drive to reduce the "essentials" of the faith to a few propositions such as the virgin birth, deity, and bodily resurrection of Christ was a drive toward, not away from fundamentalism. Identifying areas of acceptable, ecclesiastical parameters, and providing an authoritative statement of them is a way to stabilize our churches from the temporal influences of the ages, or even from pastor to pastor. 

And, as for contextualization, we must remember the intention of the divines, which was to set out Scripture doctrine, which was then and is now trans-temporal. If the author's assertion is correct, that the confession must be understood in a continuing and progressive temporally and culturally oriented fashion, why would there ever be a need for revisions? Why did the American Church modify the confession? Why did the ARP (the author's own denomination) add 2 chapters? Why not simply interpret the confession in a way consistent with this ever-changing and progressive perspective?


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 19, 2013)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> If we receive the Confession as statements of Biblical doctrine, what is there to critique? It seems that our view of sin, righteousness, judgment and reality ought to flow from the Scripture to the world around us. The Confession, In my humble opinion is a "directory" of how to do that. The proposition that six day creationism is a political reaction rather than an interpretation of Scripture seems like an attempt to "ghetto-ize" that understanding--relegating it to its own context only, apart from the "real world".
> 
> As for primary, secondary, and tertiary issues, they do exist in the confession as "acceptable confessional parameters". So, both supralapsarians and infralapsarians and subscribe in good conscience, both amillennial, and postmillenial, and some other issues as well. In my studies I learned that the drive to reduce the "essentials" of the faith to a few propositions such as the virgin birth, deity, and bodily resurrection of Christ was a drive toward, not away from fundamentalism. Identifying areas of acceptable, ecclesiastical parameters, and providing an authoritative statement of them is a way to stabilize our churches from the temporal influences of the ages, or even from pastor to pastor.
> 
> And, as for contextualization, we must remember the intention of the divines, which was to set out Scripture doctrine, which was then and is now trans-temporal. If the author's assertion is correct, that the confession must be understood in a continuing and progressive temporally and culturally oriented fashion, why would there ever be a need for revisions? Why did the American Church modify the confession? Why did the ARP (the author's own denomination) add 2 chapters? Why not simply interpret the confession in a way consistent with this ever-changing and progressive perspective?



Excellent summary and instruction, pastor. The up-and-coming generation is the tripping over themselves with "contextualization", "relevance" and with "culture". Wittingly or unwittingly, they have embraced Finney and have hugged him like a long lost uncle; forgetting the "old" gospel is the power of God unto salvation..............


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 19, 2013)

The attack on Scripture begins with an attack on teachings derived from Scripture. This particular author believes (along with the German Rationalists of the 19th century) that the Bible is the *W*ord of God, and also the *w*ord of man. This is his _pseudon proton_:



> some have sought to minimize both the *human dimension of Scripture *and the interpretive aspect of our appropriation of Scripture


.

This is the end-game of so-called Biblical Theology.

Cheers,


----------

