# Credence of extra biblical writings



## shackleton (Aug 22, 2007)

How much credence should we give extra biblical writings? Lately, I have noticed that when answering certain posts the proof for the answer is given according to what some extra biblical writing says on the subject, rather than what the bible has to say on the subject, i.e. confessions, catechisms, RPW, Calvin, Puritans etc. Did God intend these to be held up as a standard for truth? 
Although these are well thought out documents, by very well educated men, who spent much time on their compilation, should they be followed as if they are scripture? Should they not instead be held up as, this is how _our_ particular denomination sees it, rather than holding all people accountable to what a creed, confession or the RPW says?
I am also noticing that people tend to disagree as to how these documents should be interpreted. For example, the belief that one version of a particular confession is better than another. If we are basing standards on what these documents say, how do we know which version to follow?


----------



## raderag (Aug 22, 2007)

shackleton said:


> How much credence should we give extra biblical writings? Lately, I have noticed that when answering certain posts the proof for the answer is given according to what some extra biblical writing says on the subject, rather than what the bible has to say on the subject, i.e. confessions, catechisms, RPW, Calvin, Puritans etc. Did God intend these to be held up as a standard for truth?
> Although these are well thought out documents, by very well educated men, who spent much time on their compilation, should they be followed as if they are scripture? Should they not instead be held up as, this is how _our_ particular denomination sees it, rather than holding all people accountable to what a creed, confession or the RPW says?
> I am also noticing that people tend to disagree as to how these documents should be interpreted. For example, the belief that one version of a particular confession is better than another. If we are basing standards on what these documents say, how do we know which version to follow?



They are not a standard for truth or faith, but a confessional church agrees that it is the correct teaching. So, if Bob teaches X, and X is contradicted in the confession, we can point to that. Rather than playing bible ping-pong with Bob, we can ask Bob to interact with the historical understanding, and we can insist that this is done in an academic/ecclessiastical setting. This speaks to both the peace and purity of the Church. Without confessions we have the same confusion as the evanjellifish.


----------



## KMK (Aug 22, 2007)

But also, confessions and catechisms and commentaries teach us about Historical Theology which is important to consider when understanding a doctrine or a passage of Scripture. It is not the only thing, but it is one of the things that should be known in order to fully understand. The church has 2000 years of expert witnesses that we are to consider.


----------



## shackleton (Aug 22, 2007)

Do these answers constitute the basis for _Sola Scriptura_? 
The bible is the standard over all other things, but is not alone. These documents are summaries of what the bible teaches?


----------



## KMK (Aug 22, 2007)

shackleton said:


> Do these answers constitute the basis for _Sola Scriptura_?
> The bible is the standard over all other things, but is not alone. These documents are summaries of what the bible teaches?



What are the 'documents' you are referring to? If you are referring to 'all' extra-biblical writings then the answer is no. If you are referring to the confessions and catechisms of the reformed faith and the commentaries of the men who helped frame them, then the word 'summary' might not be the right word. The word 'summaries' implies that there are details that have been left out for the sake of brevity. But the WCF, 3 Forms, LBC and all the catechisms are not brief. They are not 'summaries' per se but 'confessions'. A bunch of Godly Bible experts got together and prayerfully sought to put into writing exactly what they all agreed the Bible teaches for the purpose of shaping the doctrine of the church. Therefore if there is something that these confessions leave out it was not considered 'doctrinal' or they did not agree. (Hence chapter 33 of the WCF which only contains 3 paragraphs. Not because the Bible does not teach a great deal about eschatology, but because, I assume, there was not agreement on many things.)

I am just thinking off the top of my head so I am interested in what others might say...


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 22, 2007)

raderag said:


> They are not a standard for truth or faith, but a confessional church agrees that it is the correct teaching. So, if Bob teaches X, and X is contradicted in the confession, we can point to that. Rather than playing bible ping-pong with Bob, we can ask Bob to interact with the historical understanding, and we can insist that this is done in an academic/ecclessiastical setting. This speaks to both the peace and purity of the Church. Without confessions we have the same confusion as the evanjellifish.



Coming from a non-confessional background, this is the problem that most evanjellyfish have with confessional churches. Bob teaches X from a passage, say, in Jeremiah 31.  Rather than the church turning to Jeremiah 31 to discuss it with Bob, the church pulls out the Confessional statement. Evanjellyfish see that as holding the creed above the Scripture rather than the Scripture above the creed.

I am not saying I currently feel that way, but I did. I joined the PB two years ago, but did not read much because I saw a lot of Confessional statements and commentaries being pasted as responses to questions and little interaction with the biblical text. Now, having studied the confessions a little and their history and what people think of them, I understand. But the average (even seminary trained) evanjellyfish does not. They do not see sola scriptura being upheld. They see creeds and confessions being upheld.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Coming from a non-confessional background, this is the problem that most evanjellyfish have with confessional churches. Bob teaches X from a passage, say, in Jeremiah 31.  Rather than the church turning to Jeremiah 31 to discuss it with Bob, the church pulls out the Confessional statement. Evanjellyfish see that as holding the creed above the Scripture rather than the Scripture above the creed.
> 
> I am not saying I currently feel that way, but I did. I joined the PB two years ago, but did not read much because I saw a lot of Confessional statements and commentaries being pasted as responses to questions and little interaction with the biblical text. Now, having studied the confessions a little and their history and what people think of them, I understand. But the average (even seminary trained) evanjellyfish does not. They do not see sola scriptura being upheld. They see creeds and confessions being upheld.



Exactly my position in my non-confessional days. Well said brother.


----------



## raderag (Aug 22, 2007)

shackleton said:


> Do these answers constitute the basis for _Sola Scriptura_?
> The bible is the standard over all other things, but is not alone. These documents are summaries of what the bible teaches?



I think that is a pretty good understanding. The creeds, confessions, and catechisms can be seen as case law used by the Church in determining orthodoxy. If in fact they are wrong, we must prove so by the final authority (Scripture), and do so in interacting with the actual arguments of the historical documents.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 22, 2007)

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]

Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,[3] is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.[4]

Q. 3. What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A. The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God,[5] and what duty God requires of man.[6]

Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit,[7] infinite,[8] eternal,[9] and unchangeable,[10] in his being,[11] wisdom,[12] power,[13] holiness,[14] justice,[15] goodness,[16] and truth.[17]

Q. 5. Are there more Gods than one?
A. There is but one only,[18] the living and true God.[19]

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;[20] and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.[21]

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.[22]

Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.[23]

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is, God’s making all things of n


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 22, 2007)

I think there is a big danger in doing "link-tag" theology. Rather than doing serious reflection and analysis, it is so much easier to go to a website and copy/paste an argument. Out of principle, I never read those posts. 

Now, I have become more Confessio-Systematic than ever, but I would warn those who would turn the Confession or St. Calvin into a crutch. Because when you are on the streets or in public disputation, you won't have your laptop with you to copy/paste. 

The only exception to the confession that I take is the exception that you can take exceptions to the Confession.


----------



## shackleton (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Coming from a non-confessional background, this is the problem that most evanjellyfish have with confessional churches. Bob teaches X from a passage, say, in Jeremiah 31.  Rather than the church turning to Jeremiah 31 to discuss it with Bob, the church pulls out the Confessional statement. Evanjellyfish see that as holding the creed above the Scripture rather than the Scripture above the creed.
> 
> They do not see sola scriptura being upheld. They see creeds and confessions being upheld.



I would say this is where I am at right now, being reformed less than two years. When answering questions, people refer to Calvin, Confessions, RPW etc. When I see this my first thought is, "Well so what...he was not an apostle, and these writings were not inspired!" With this mindset it is hard to see these responses as carrying any weight, since coming from a non-confessional background, (Holiness, Oneness, Pentacostal), these are just what _man_ thinks, or how _man_ interprets what the bible says. I guess this line of reasoning must be Sol*o* Scriptura


----------



## satz (Aug 22, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Coming from a non-confessional background, this is the problem that most evanjellyfish have with confessional churches. Bob teaches X from a passage, say, in Jeremiah 31.  Rather than the church turning to Jeremiah 31 to discuss it with Bob, the church pulls out the Confessional statement. Evanjellyfish see that as holding the creed above the Scripture rather than the Scripture above the creed.
> 
> I am not saying I currently feel that way, but I did. I joined the PB two years ago, but did not read much because I saw a lot of Confessional statements and commentaries being pasted as responses to questions and little interaction with the biblical text. Now, having studied the confessions a little and their history and what people think of them, I understand. But the average (even seminary trained) evanjellyfish does not. They do not see sola scriptura being upheld. They see creeds and confessions being upheld.



Call me an evanjellyfish, but I have not a little sympathy for this position. I do not deny the importance of using our God given teachers to understand the truth, nor do I deny the value of the historical witness of the church. However, sometimes the _method_ of argumentation or teaching displayed on this board does frustrate me. What I am about to say will of course to an extent be a generalization. But I thought I would share some thoughts. 

To be honest, if it were up to me, the Confessions would be used primarily as a 'warning marker' to pull people in when they are about to go off the deep end, not something that is bandied about instead of bible verses in normal conversation. When a point of doctrine is being debated, I find it hard to understand why some will quote what the confession says without any bible references, when the confession itself, to my knowledge provides proof-texts for everything it says. Why not just use some of the proved proof-texts? Or use both - this is what the confession says, because of verse xxx etc. Why chose to just quote the confession alone?

As another example, when some moral issue is being debated, often someone will turn to the Catechism's teaching on the Ten Commandments and quote from one of the list of items listed under 'What does the X Commandment forbid...'. Again, in the majority of cases the Catechism writers have put in bible references to prove why they listed each item as sin, but modern reformed people often do not use these but just quote the Catechism vertabrim. I am NOT accusing anyone of putting the writings of men above the bible, as I said, the works of teachers have an important role to play. But I do disagree with _how_ those works are often used in the modern reformed community.

I'll give yet another example, often in a debate/discussion someone will drop the bomb 'But Calvin said...' 'But Reformer X said...' etc etc. Instead of just leaving it at that, which is often the case, why not present (or summurize) Calvin's biblical argument? However, often a bare assertion is made and a 'big name' tagged on to it, and that is expected to be enough.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 22, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I think there is a big danger in doing "link-tag" theology. Rather than doing serious reflection and analysis, it is so much easier to go to a website and copy/paste an argument. Out of principle, I never read those posts.
> 
> Now, I have become more Confessio-Systematic than ever, but I would warn those who would turn the Confession or St. Calvin into a crutch. Because when you are on the streets or in public disputation, you won't have your laptop with you to copy/paste.
> 
> The only exception to the confession that I take is the exception that you can take exceptions to the Confession.



And that's why it's good to memorize the _Institutes_, in Latin if you can, together with all the Westminster Standards. Then you're never at a loss!


----------



## JohnV (Aug 23, 2007)

shackleton said:


> Do these answers constitute the basis for _Sola Scriptura_?
> The bible is the standard over all other things, but is not alone. These documents are summaries of what the bible teaches?


Erich:

It is my position (as an individual) that this is not the basis for Sola Scriptura. 

However, one person cannot make a claim to sola Scriptura against another. This is the problem that Ken and Brett point out. Where I think the problem lies is in how much claim a Confession has to sola Scriptura, seeing that it was authored by fallible men. 

Some of the things that a Confession has going for it is that it has been put together by a gathering of some of the best minds on the subjects, men especially gathered for that purpose and nothing else, and men gathered under the strict rules of ecclesiastical assembly (i.e., prayer, worship, and the Word.) There are other things too, like many years of subsequent scrutiny by following generations of godly men. But there's one more that should not be overlooked: they've been accepted by churches. That is, ordinary believers like you and me assembled in groups called churches. 

So someone who disagrees with the Confession is disagreeing with a considerable amount of consensus. That's the point. Not that the Confessions replace the Bible, but that they represent the witness of the Church as well as the witness of the Holy Spirit. These are the Confessions that faithful churches have adopted. Sure, unfaithful churches have adopted them too, but only to have the appearance of orthodoxy; they have no intention of holding to them. 

On the other hand, simply citing the Confessions as the composite belief of the Church, and therefore to go against it is to go against God, is not exactly right. It is a very weighty thing to go against the Church, but it must be done from time to time. Every believer has an office in the Church, right from the time of the Jerusalem Council, and the Church has to be careful not only to guard that but to take it seriously. You can't look only to the elders, because elders are chosen from among the ordinary members too. We, you and I, have a responsibility to the Church. When we disagree we had better know what we're doing, and not be doing it just because we feel like it. 

In our day especially our churches hold to the Confessions but have a practice that might vary from the Bible's teachings. Too much reliance upon the Confessions apart from a solid Biblical grounding also leads to errors. There are a number of things that you and I as ordinary members have a duty towards. The Church is made of believers; some are elders but most are ordinary believers. Each has his place and purpose to fulfill. The ultimate authority has to be the Bible and nothing else; but the witness of so generations of the Church and of many respected believers should not be so easily discounted.


----------



## KMK (Aug 23, 2007)

JohnV said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> > Do these answers constitute the basis for _Sola Scriptura_?
> ...



Very good point, John! (That is also the main reason I use the KJV. It represents the witness of the church. 



JohnV said:


> On the other hand, simply citing the Confessions as the composite belief of the Church, and therefore to go against it is to go against God, is not exactly right. It is a very weighty thing to go against the Church, but it must be done from time to time. Every believer has an office in the Church, right from the time of the Jerusalem Council, and the Church has to be careful not only to guard that but to take it seriously. You can't look only to the elders, because elders are chosen from among the ordinary members too. We, you and I, have a responsibility to the Church. When we disagree we had better know what we're doing, and not be doing it just because we feel like it.
> 
> In our day especially our churches hold to the Confessions but have a practice that might vary from the Bible's teachings. Too much reliance upon the Confessions apart from a solid Biblical grounding also leads to errors. There are a number of things that you and I as ordinary members have a duty towards. The Church is made of believers; some are elders but most are ordinary believers. Each has his place and purpose to fulfill. The ultimate authority has to be the Bible and nothing else; but the witness of so generations of the Church and of many respected believers should not be so easily discounted.



I think the love of confessions grows out of 2 Cor 13:11 "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."

The God of love dwells in churches that cherish the same views and strive for peace. (Kind of like PB!)


----------

