# Deeper, Not Broader



## greenbaggins (Apr 17, 2009)

The discussion on John Frame's position on the confession can probably be summarized as a debate about theological progression and the nature of boundaries. What role do boundaries play in our theological formulation? Should there be any boundaries? 

The short answer is yes. There should be rigid boundaries. I understand why people get leery of such thoughts. They think that rigid boundaries attack the sole authority of Scripture. However, this is not really the case. There have been, and always will be processes in place for the possible changing of the confession. This has happened in Presbyterian history. It is difficult to do, of course, and should be. Otherwise, liberalism would too easily waltz in and take possession of confessional churches. 

I think a more helpful view of theological progression is that we need progression in a deeper way, not a broader way. In other words, there is a faith once for all delivered to the saints, as Jude tells us. If it is once for all delivered, it is not constantly being redelivered. However, our understanding of that once for all delivered faith is constantly progressing. Therefore, the main value of confessions is to show us the boundaries. We should trust the church that the church knows whereof she speaks when she says that treading outside these boundaries is dangerous for one's spiritual health. The pillars of Scriptural truth do not change over time. Woe to scholars who think they do change! They are confusing our _understanding_ of those rock solid pillars with the pillars _themselves_.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 17, 2009)

I wonder if this could also be related to issues in textual criticism. Should we be looking at the history of the text to establish broader boundaries of the text of Scripture, or should we look at its history to establish a deeper understanding of the Scripture that we have.


----------



## KMK (Apr 17, 2009)

Hosea 5:10 The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bound: [therefore] I will pour out my wrath upon them like water.


----------



## Rangerus (Apr 17, 2009)

Proverbs 22:28 KJV (28) Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 17, 2009)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 17, 2009)

I agree entirely Lane. Thanks for your post. What concerns me is that sometimes "deeper" reflections sometime end up in a deconstructionism of the confessions. As Reformed Christians, we adhere to a certain "stasis" in Biblical thought, as you put it, the Faith is not being forever redelivered. However, this "conservative" mindset, in the true meaning of that term (to conserve what we have attained) is perfectly at odds with the current thinking of much of the world, which believes that new is better, old is passe' and stasis is a refusal to "step into the 90's". <g> It takes much effort in today's Christian culture to maintain that stasis of doctrine, while continuing the God-honoring search for greater depth, for new ways of affirming that Old Faith, once for all delivered to the saints.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 17, 2009)

You're right we do need those fences!


----------



## DonP (Apr 17, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> What role do boundaries play in our theological formulation? Should there be any boundaries?
> 
> The short answer is yes. There should be rigid boundaries. I understand why people get leery of such thoughts. They think that rigid boundaries attack the sole authority of Scripture. However, this is not really the case. There have been, and always will be processes in place for the possible changing of the confession. This has happened in Presbyterian history. It is difficult to do, of course, and should be. Otherwise, liberalism would too easily waltz in and take possession of confessional churches.
> 
> I think a more helpful view of theological progression is that we need progression in a deeper way, not a broader way. In other words, there is a faith once for all delivered to the saints, as Jude tells us. If it is once for all delivered, it is not constantly being redelivered.



Enough said. The Confession is the boundary around the once for all delivered central doctrines of the faith. 

Any thing else deeper or wider is fine. Its not a confessional issue. Dig as deep as you want. 

Just don't try to change the once for all central tenets of the faith ! 

In fact liberalism has set it aside in the past or as the PCUSA toss it out altogether and others currently moving to do the same by seeking to expand the Confession and have wiggle room, or gut it of its control, rather than accept it as the once for all and go on about their own ideas out side the boundary set by the Confession.


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 17, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> The short answer is yes. There should be rigid boundaries. I understand why people get leery of such thoughts. They think that rigid boundaries attack the sole authority of Scripture. However, this is not really the case. There have been, and always will be processes in place for the possible changing of the confession. This has happened in Presbyterian history. It is difficult to do, of course, and should be. Otherwise, liberalism would too easily waltz in and take possession of confessional churches.



Lane, I want to interact with you on this, because I respect you and want to figure this out a little more deeply. I question whether the difficulty of changing the confession really protects churches from liberalism, or anything else. First, let me create a hypothetical person. He believes what he believes because he draws it from the Bible. He agrees with his church's confession. This man probably appreciates the confession, but he doesn't really need the confession, does he? If every copy of the confession were to be lost, it wouldn't change his doctrine one bit, because he didn't draw it from the confession, but from the Bible. This person will not be without boundaries even if he is without a stated confession. He can defend his doctrine exegetically without recourse to historic documents. He could, from his own knowledge of doctrine, rewrite a similar confession if he wished.

On the other hand, let us consider liberalism or any other heresy. Usually the doctrine intrudes and takes control without changing any official documents. Only a generation later, when everyone realizes that nobody believes those things anymore, do they get rid of them. So, confessions don't stop doctrinal deviation. 



greenbaggins said:


> I think a more helpful view of theological progression is that we need progression in a deeper way, not a broader way. In other words, there is a faith once for all delivered to the saints, as Jude tells us. If it is once for all delivered, it is not constantly being redelivered. However, our understanding of that once for all delivered faith is constantly progressing. Therefore, the main value of confessions is to show us the boundaries. We should trust the church that the church knows whereof she speaks when she says that treading outside these boundaries is dangerous for one's spiritual health. The pillars of Scriptural truth do not change over time. Woe to scholars who think they do change! They are confusing our _understanding_ of those rock solid pillars with the pillars _themselves_.



In this paragraph, I have to ask who the saints are, who "us" and "we" are, and who the "church" is. Surely, Jude did not mean to say that the faith was delivered once and for all only to the 16th century Reformed church. Surely, the "church" cannot refer only to the 16th century Reformed church. I don't see how confessions provide us with authoritative boundaries unless all Christians agree to the same confession. On this board, we have Baptists and Presbyterians. Since there are two confessions that say different things about baptism, are there two boundaries for baptism? What about Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist confessions? Are they authoritative boundaries for Christians? 

If I choose my confession from among alternatives, it can't be an authority over me. If there is one confession that is authoritative because it is biblical, than it is actually the Bible rather than the confession that is the boundary. If the confession has the authority to rule out certain understandings of the Bible, than the confession is superior in authority to the Bible.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 17, 2009)

Charlie,
Confessions aren't intended to stop heresy. The scriptures do that. But confessions my identify a heresy. 

As to the hypothetical person you mentioned, it would be a rare individual who would be able to come to the same understanding as the confession all on his own. I became a believer by reading the Bible. But my theology was nascent, and not at all as comprehensive or precise as the confessions. A confession isn't the work of one man. It's the work of many men, wiser than me. 

When I run into a place where my understanding differs from the confession, my first response isn't to reject the confession or take immediate exception to it. My first response is to question my own understanding. Perhaps I've got it wrong. If, after serious and prayerful study, I come to realize that I cannot subscribe to the confession at a given point, then I have a choice. I must decide whether to find another body that is more in lines with my understanding (i.e., a confessional body subscribing to a different confession), or debate the matter within the confessional circle (understanding that the burden of proof is mine). 

One of the great things about confessional standards is that they promote peace and order. Also, they allow us to get beyond preliminary matters, since these are things we can assume together. They provide a convenient curriculum for education. They force us to think. They show up error, or potential error. They have many, many benefits. But they are ONLY authoritative, insofar as they embody the teaching of the scriptures themselves, and they should only be appealed to in the manner of shorthand. "The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule to direct us . . ." The confessions only help us say in a few sentences what would take an hour and many pages to do in exegesis. We don't want to have to do that every time someone asks us a question. And they probably don't want it either. They just want their question answered. Confessions give us tried and true and reliable answers. Theology can be so subtle sometimes, I really appreciate the precision and care that the framers of our confessions took in formulating the statements/answers.


----------



## DonP (Apr 17, 2009)

The united pres church starts Princeton and requires profs to confess and teach no other. Wish we had this today!!
*
The History Behind the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod
by George P. Hutchinson*

The General Assembly, not content to leave the education of the Church‘s ministers to others, established Princeton Theological Seminary in 1811. The Seminary is to be governed by a Board of Directors directly responsible to the Assembly. Each professor must be an ordained minister in the Church and solemnly subscribe ex animo to her stan- dards with the solemn promise not to teach or insinuate any- thing contrary to what is taught in them. Upon finishing his course, the student is to be a biblical critic, an apologist, a systematic theologian, a counsellor, and a church administra- tor—prepared to be ‗a useful preacher, and a faithful pastor.‘ It is expected that every student in the Theological Seminary will spend a portion of time every morning and evening in devout medita- tion, and self-recollection and examination; in reading the holy Scrip-tures, solely with a view to a personal and practical application of the passage read, to his own heart, character, and circumstances; and in humble fervent prayer and praise to God in secret. The aim is to avoid ‗formality and indifference‘ on the one hand and ‗ostentation and enthusiasm‘ on the other.40 In 1819 the General Assembly also established a Board of Education for the purpose of watching over, encouraging, and supporting the education of the youth of the Church with a view to their offering themselves to the Gospel. To the Board this was not simply another benevolent plan but a ‗matter of fundamental importance to the cause of Christ.‘ In 1824 the Assembly officially recommended Sabbath Schools which had now become an established institution in the Church.41

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 11:46:43 EST-----

All ministers and elders should read the history of the PRes church in the US and see that every time they allow the weaker men in it goes downhill and splits result.
This is a good history as are The Presbyterian Conflict - Rian and
Fighting the Good Fight - Hart and Muether, these are excellent !!

You just can't loosen to accommodate them hoping they will get better, you wait till they do.

Things never change.

The Old School was charged with being exclusive and sectarian.61

The latter, on the other hand, opposed the existence and operation within the Church of educational and missionary societies not under any ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This oppo- sition was based on at least two practical considerations. First, the independent agency may become unsound; and second, the control of the work of the Church tends to be in the hands of a few men rather than in the hands of the Church as a whole.62 The opposition also stemmed from an appeal to distinctive Presbyterian principles. Some Old School men condemned independent agencies as, in the nature of the case, unpresbyterian. Others like Charles Hodge argued that, while not wrong in themselves and often helpful, such agencies are not conducive to the distinctive interests of the Presbyterian Church, which is obliged to educate her own ministers and oversee their work. ‗People may cry out against all this as high churchism, but it is Presbyterianism.‘6


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2009)

Deeper not broader? Can't we have both Lane? I think I feel a song coming on...



> Deep and wide
> Deep and wide
> There's a fountain flowing deep and wide
> Deep and wide
> ...


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think I feel a song coming on...



Yes, depth is often associated with "hmmm." It reminds me of the picture of the footprints which have gone all over the desert, and finally lead up to a dead body sprawled on the ground, with the caption, "It is the journey that matters."

The bottomless pit is a deep place!

Miners dig deeper for the purpose of extracting what is worthwhile out of the earth, not to risk life and limb for nothing.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 18, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I think I feel a song coming on...
> ...



GREAT imagery!


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 18, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Miners dig deeper for the purpose of extracting what is worthwhile out of the earth, not to risk life and limb for nothing.



Only children dig holes for fun.


----------



## DonP (Apr 18, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I think I feel a song coming on...
> ...



Wonder if the FW people and the Federalists think they are digging deeper?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 18, 2009)

Charlie, I don't have a whole lot to add to Clark's outstanding reply. I would only add this: None of us even have the possibility of doing theology in a vacuum. We cannot do theology outside the context of the church. Even if we react against the church's teachings, we are still doing theology in the context of the church. There is no such thing as a blank slate Christian. And, as Clark mentioned, it is not wise to seek to come to a Biblical understanding apart from what God has taught the church in all ages. Of course Jude wasn't referring solely to 16-17th century documents when he made his plea. However, the early ecumenical creeds and the creeds of the Reformation seek to codify and define that faith once for all delivered. Some, of course, do it better than others. But we do not have to reject confessions simply because the WCF is not universally in use. The truth is not universally in use either. Should we abandon the truth for that reason? You will never get any post-ecumenical creed to be agreed upon by all of Christendom. You can't even get East and West to agree on the same form of the Nicene Creed. But if we deny our Reformed confessions, then we deny our Reformed identity, and we might as well go back to Rome. If the 16-17th century confessions do not codify Scriptural truths, then God forgive us for leaving Rome. The only legitimate reason for leaving Rome is if Rome is no longer a true church. Of course it "helped" that Rome excommunicated the Reformers. But not until every effort had been made to reform the church from within.


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 18, 2009)

Lane, I probably obscured myself through the length of my reply. When speaking of an individual, I wonder how a confession functions as a border. I wasn't born into a Reformed environment. I have come into the Reformed church piece by piece as my understanding of Scripture has changed. It seems to me that a confession can only describe my belief, not prescribe it.

So, let's take a person who recently became a Christian by reading a tract left in a taxi cab. He talks to one of his friends whom he knows is a Christian. Here's the conversation -

"What do Christians believe?"
"Christians believe the Bible."
"What does the Bible teach?"
"The teachings of the Bible are summarized in confessions, which serve as boundaries for what Christians may say the Bible teaches."
"Oh, ok. Where are the confessions?"
"Well, every denomination has a different one, and sometimes they disagree."
"So, how do I know which one is right."
"By the Bible."

You see, you have told me that I need to do theology within the context of the Church. I agree. But, who is the Church? It seems that I have to make decisions on what the Bible teaches just to figure out who the Church is. No one here ever says we need to do our theology in the context of the Fourth Lateran Council, even though that was before the Reformation. Why not? Because we disagree w/ the theology. So, I guess that's not really a boundary for us, because we disagree with it. Some boundary.

I suppose there is a bit of a hermeneutical spiral at work here, but it strikes me as odd to hear the confessions spoken of as a boundary. You have to know what the Bible teaches to know which confession is correct, but the confession prescribes what we may say the Bible teaches? And, do all confessions have this "bounding" authority, or just the one I choose to hold to? And, if I choose to hold to it, how can it be an authority over me unless it has a claim of divine inspiration and authority?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 18, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Lane, I probably obscured myself through the length of my reply. When speaking of an individual, I wonder how a confession functions as a border. I wasn't born into a Reformed environment. I have come into the Reformed church piece by piece as my understanding of Scripture has changed. It seems to me that a confession can only describe my belief, not prescribe it.
> 
> So, let's take a person who recently became a Christian by reading a tract left in a taxi cab. He talks to one of his friends whom he knows is a Christian. Here's the conversation -
> 
> ...



For a new Christian, it would be a process of growth and knowledge in the Christian faith. Spiral is a helpful way of thinking about it. I would say the confession is a boundary in the sense of identifying what is central, and identifying what is wrong. Many confessions agree on the very central things of the faith. No one can bind the conscience, either. No confession can bind the conscience. Only the Word of God can bind the conscience. So the confessions are NOT boundaries in the sense of binding the conscience. They are identifying marks of their respective churches. Do you want to know what a confessional Reformed church looks like? Look at the WS or the 3FU. Do you want to know what the Lutheran church believes? Look at the Formula of Concord, Luther's Catechism, the Augsburg Confession. Do you want to know what the Anglican Church believes? Look at the 39 Articles. It sounds kind of cheesy to say, but a believer has to choose which church he believes best fits the data of Scripture. The best measuring rod for that is that particular church's confession. And don't be fooled by a church that says it doesn't have one. It does have one, but it will not tell you what it is unless you start messing with its cherished beliefs.


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 18, 2009)

Thanks, Lane. I appreciate how you put that. That makes good sense to me. I think I imported more into your post than what you actually meant b/c of some of my interaction with "strict subscriptionists," usually students. Sometimes in the course of a conversation, a certain idea will be pronounced "unconfessional." If one tries to dig deeper, the conversation turns ugly. These people tend to lean on the confessions to make up for their own lack of familiarity with the relevant Scripture and arguments. [NOTE: I haven't really gotten that impression from as many older, more seasoned strict subscriptionalists. Part of it, I'm sure, is just immaturity.]

Now, I'm not a member of a confessional church, but I pretty much agree with the Reformed confessions and would consider myself sympathetic. If in my perspective some Reformed people seem to be confessionalists _rather than_ biblicists, the farther one gets from our circles, the worse it looks. In a recent systematic theology published by Roland McCune, professor at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, he accuses some Reformed and Lutherans of doing systematic theology from history rather than the Bible. I think he's wrong, but I also think that we Reformed are sometimes to blame for the misperception. Especially on this board where many of the people have a deep appreciation for their Reformed heritage, it's easy to get the idea - "The Confession says it, I believe it, that settles it." I hope that we never use appeal to history as an excuse not to do our own exegetical homework.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 18, 2009)

Just to be fair here, Bob Gonzales posted this in the other thread. I don't think you are ready to say woe unto you to RS Clark are you?

_I see no problem with Frame's questions. R. Scott Clark, an ardent defender of confessions, thinks it's time for a new Reformed confession. Writes Clark,
The relative reluctance of modern Reformed folk to confess the faith in their own words suggests a certain weakness in the post-Westminster understanding of the importance and necessity of confession.

Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,
When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, and in accordance with the additional light of Scripture which the Holy Spirit might be pleased to give the church. I believe that the time has come for us to do something along this line.

So Frame's point is valid. Of course, those who don't like some of Frame's theology will attribute an ill design to his motives. Frame may be against a kind of static confessionalism, but he's not opposed to orthodoxy or confessionalism per se. _

And KMK the mod posted this:

_I think what pepper is asking is this: If the confession can be rewritten by Baptists and remain orthodox (which the PB maintains) why can't Frame rewrite the WCF and remain orthodox?

Please do not turn this thread into a brawl over the orthodoxy of the LBC since it is accepted as orthodox here on PB. _

Don't get me wrong, I am sincerely troubled by Frame's comment and I hope he is just expressing his thinking poorly ( not usual for him!). But the comments by Gonzales and Pepper are good ones.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 18, 2009)

A difference, Lynnie, is the trajectory. I doubt that Dr. Clark is moving along the same path as Dr. Frame. Using a Clark quote about the value of modifying the confession in one direction is not support for Frame's desire to move it in the opposite direction.

It would be like saying that the tea bag protesters were really supporting MoveOn.org in that they both agree that the Federal Government needs to be changed.


----------

