# Is it OK to learn about God and truth significantly with STs or confessions?



## lynnie (Nov 24, 2009)

I was reading Bob G's thread about Clark's book and I didn't want to thread drift, but I have been wondering about this for a while.

Sometimes it seems to me with some people that the confessions are vitamin pills. Essential truths have been isolated and distilled and compacted into one single unit of truth. You have the vitamin C pill, and the Vitamin A pill, and the Vitamin D pill. You have the calcium supplement and the zinc pills.

That's all great when a person is suffering from rickets and needs D, or beri beri and needs B1, or scurvy and needs C. Vitamins can serve a valuable purpose.

Bue we are supposed to get our nutrition from food. Ideally, it comes packed together with fats and proteins and carbs and fibers and "x-factors". Some vitamins can't even be properly absorbed without other items like magnesium working with calcium, or vitamins that need fats for absorption. C is better utilized with a whole host of bioflavinoids that are usually not in the pills.

NOTHING is healthier than real food. No pills or powders can ever duplicate the real thing.

So anyway, the bible is food. It is my very bread. 

Are we supposed to learn truth in little isolated tablets of election and sovereignty? Vitamin pills of perseverance and the sabbath?

Aren't we are supposed to learn truth with everything all mixed together...the stories and the history and the long rambling tangents Paul goes off on sometimes? Maybe we are not supposed to learn distilled down and isolated concepts, apart from all the stuff that seems unrelated? Maybe the stuff that APPEARS to be unrelated is vital? 

I had started going through the confession with our daughter, but I stopped and went back to only bible. Don't get me wrong here, I love systematic theology, and I like to listen to ST preaching better than expository. I love one concept developed through several books, or in the OT and NT. I love having the confession as a great ST.

But aren't we sort of turning it into a vitamin pill? I mean, isn't real food better? Doesn't the doctrine of sufficiency demand that we say the bible is *sufficient exactly as it is presented*, with all the confessional truths mixed up with everything else all together? Isn't the food designed perfectly, just the way it is? 

Lane said this in the other thread: _The problem that a confession addresses is that "every heretic has his text." Shouldn't the church, therefore, agree on what it thinks the Scripture teaches? _ and I agree. I've seen one church go off the rails, and I think churches need a statement of faith, not just "well, we believe the bible" as their statement. Some things need to be distilled out in a church statement of faith.

I can't really sort this out in my mind, except that it seems like people push vitamin pills when what they should be pushing instead is the healthy diet. Oranges instead of C powder. Sunshine instead of D pills. A good total bible diet instead of a jar of confession pills. Everything together instead of isolated nuggets of nutrition. Pills are good for sick people and undernourished people and people in the hospital who can't eat. But isn't the food of the whole bible what healthy people should eat?

I do not mean in any way to not respect and honor the work of our forefathers who framed the confessions. But now that we live in a society with bibles and we can all read and have a bible, and we are not sick unto death from a culture steeped in Romanism, do we need the vitamin pills so badly? And if you say that yes we do, then why just the vitamin pills from back then? What about Darwin and feminism and psychobabble? Why not a new statement for the sickness of our day?

I guess I have ranted long enough  Thanks for any thoughts.


----------



## JML (Nov 24, 2009)

lynnie said:


> And if you say that yes we do, then why just the vitamin pills from back then? What about Darwin and feminism and psychobabble? Why not a new statement for the sickness of our day?
> 
> I guess I have ranted long enough  Thanks for any thoughts.




I will let others comment on the rest of your post but one thing that I would like to add to the last statement is this:

*Ecclesiastes 1:9-10*

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 


Sin may present itself in different ways but there are no new sins. So I don't know if we can argue that we need a new confession because there are sins that were not around back then. Just my thoughts. Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 24, 2009)

Lynnie,

It's a false dilemma. There is wisdom to be mined through many ways even in the Scriptures. Romans is very systematic. Psalms has hymns, teaching, wisdom, praise, etc. The Gospels have teaching and parables.

Properly understanding any passage of Scripture is not simply determining what the text means to me but involves determining original authorial intent, what the proximate meaning of the text is within the immediate context, what the meaning of the text is relative to other parts of the Scripture, and how it then applies to the hearers.

Just last night I was interacting with my Hermeneutics professor on why the Parables were used so often by Christ. The Scriptures are replete with examples of people that think they're giving the right amount of effort with respect to the things of the Lord but the Word often challenges us for being slack concerning Spiritual things. Proverbs, then, are a form of judgment for the slothful as they content themselves with the surface meaning of Jesus' words with the deeper things only being available for those willing to invest time with Christ and interacting with him offline to ask him what the Parables really mean.

I'm not trying to accuse those that dislike ST as being slothful but I am noting that anybody who thinks they can just "get to Jesus" without taking into account the many ways in which Wisdom organizes itself in the Scriptures needs to realize that God pounds Truth into us in many different ways. Biblical Truth is more than the systemization of it but it is never less.


----------



## Wayne (Nov 24, 2009)

First principle: Scripture should be foremost and frequent in our diet. To link it more closely with food, I think it was Lee who offered something that has stuck with me, "No Bible, No Breakfast."

The Confessional standards remain necessary precisely because of our sin and the constant tendency to pull away from what Scripture teaches. The corporate nature of these Confessions adds to their value--they are a jointly agreed upon summary of what the Scriptures teach, a mini-commentary, if you will.

Should we have new confessional statements? Yes, and actually we already have had them. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is just one that comes to mind. This Manhattan Declaration that has just been released would be another. However, these tend to be issue-specific. 

A comprehensive Confession on the order of the Westminster Confession would be another thing entirely. For one, in many peoples minds it would be like trying to supercede Shakespeare--it is a classic and you can do no better. Which brings up a related point, that in practice the newer comprehensive document will almost always supercede the older. Tread carefully, therefore! Better get it right the first time if you are going to attempt that enterprise. And a related thought ponders the qualifications of the present generation. Are we really up to the task? Intellectually, yes, perhaps; but morally and spiritually? Judging from James Reid's Memoirs of the Westminster Divines, it was not uncommon for most of those men to spend twelve or more hours a day in their study poring over the Scriptures. I don't know of many today so engaged with the text.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 24, 2009)

I think this is a false dichotomy. The confessions and STs aren't like vitamin pills. To the extent that they are in line with Scripture, the truths in the WCF etc are life giving.

But we should often/always read the confessions with the Bible nearby to check what is being said is in line with Scripture. We should always pray that God the Holy Spirit will illuminate our reading of the Bible and other good books like the confessions.

Remember that confessions like the WCF, to the extent they agree with Scripture, are a record of God's illumination of His Word over 1600 years. Those denominations that neglect/despise the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and follow a primitivism that puts them back in the first century with Bible in hand and starting the process of illumination again, are more than foolish. They are also despising one of the wonderful works of God in relation to His Word over the past 2,000 years, which will eventually result in a more mature Church.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 24, 2009)

Lynnie,

In the thread that you referred to, I am one of those who defended Dr. Clark against the accusation that he crossed into a "dangerous confessionalism." I explained how it could be perfectly reasonable to say that the authority of the confession, _because it is biblical_, is tantamount to that of Scripture. I understand that that is not what you are arguing against here. However, in case you missed it, I just wanted to point out that the discussion in that thread was on the topic of _subscription_ to the confession.

I do not know what the PCA's practice is when it comes to subscription to the confessional standard/s but I am a member of the OPC and, in the OPC, only the officers of the church are required to subscribe to the confession. My wife and I didn't even go through catechism class when we applied for membership. 

However, we incorporate the memorization and recitation of the confession/catechism in our daily family worship because we find it extremely beneficial to understand systematically those doctrines which God's Word teaches. We never meant this practice to be a substitute for the careful reading of the Word. In fact, we read Scripture first before we tackle another of the points in the catechism. I even know one family in our church that makes it a practice to memorize not just the catechism but also the Scripture references as well. The Scripture references are not simply there so that we could get some assurance that the confession is biblical; they are there because it is our responsibility to look them up and read them with proper devotion.

Finally, I just want to add that my main aim in our practice of reciting and memorizing the confession/catechism is not the systematization of our beliefs. That is merely secondary or even tertiary. My concern is for the well being of our souls. Every Christian has their doubts and questions. If my children ask me, "Dad, what is to be our comfort in this life?" Should I set aside the catechism and go over Scripture and prepare my own answer through exegesis? Or, should I discuss the catechism with them and use the Scripture references to show that this teaching is biblical? Think about how Heidelberg Catechism Question 1 will benefit your child if she asks you that very same question.



> 1. What is your only comfort in life and in death?
> 
> That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation. 9 Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him.
> 
> Rom 14:7,8. 1 Cor 6:19. 1 Cor 3:23. 1 Pet 1:18,19. I John 1:7. I John 2:2. I John 3:8. John 6:39. Matt 10:29, 30. Luke 21:18. Rom 8:28. 2 Cor 1:21, 22. Eph 1:13,14. Rom 8:16. Rom 8:1.


----------



## lynnie (Nov 24, 2009)

Thank you for the replies.

I guess what got me pondering this for a long time is my daughter, now age 13. She has a lot of academic struggles both with retention, and with processing logical concepts. She is not doing grade level work even though I push her hard with homeschooling. Her math tutor is intense, all year around, and she is up to grade 5 math in 7th grade (age of 8th grade). She spent almost the first three years in an bad Romanian state orphanage and was at only 30% of normal development when we got her. She seems totally bright and normal when you interact with her, but learning-any subject- is an occasional nightmare.

Anyway, she is at the age where she asks a lot of questions and theological things come up, and of course we want her to learn about God and the word all she can. I was starting in for a while on basic catechism things, and let me say that I am all for drills and rote memorization in school. But over the past two years I have scrapped the confession and catechism completely. 

Chippy, you say this:

_Finally, I just want to add that my main aim in our practice of reciting and memorizing the confession/catechism is not the systematization of our beliefs. That is merely secondary or even tertiary. My concern is for the well being of our souls. Every Christian has their doubts and questions. If my children ask me, "Dad, what is to be our comfort in this life?" Should I set aside the catechism and go over Scripture and prepare my own answer through exegesis? Or, should I discuss the catechism with them and use the Scripture references to show that this teaching is biblical? _

I guess I ended up in the exact opposite place you are. She seems to get more out of reading about Jonah in the whale, or Daniel in the Lion's den, and all the other stories, than catechism statements about sin or judgment or God's sovereignty or power. I guess I have wondered if the truths boiled down into their essential expressions, while well distilled and expressed, are meant to be learned separate from Peter and Silas in jail giving thanks even in a terrible place, or from the parables and miracles and sermons in the gospels. I am wondering if God meant us to grasp some truths from the catechisms and confessions, or from the long pretty chapters in Isaiah being read one after the other for example.

She has times when she needs comfort, but it seems like she derives it best (apart from personal love and attention) just from bible passages. I am the same way. I find that the inner hunger just doesn't get filled any other way. 
Maybe I should have had her look up every single verse when we tried the catechism. Maybe learning blurbs, without the verses, was a big mistake? In retrospect, even when I think of kids at my church memorizing the kiddie catechism version, I think they should be memorizing at least one verse to go with the blurb. But they don't.

I have to get going but thanks for the responses. I'll try to read them over a few times and think this through.

John- basic sins are not new, but Darwin is, and I think anger being a biological problem you cure with a pill is new. If I hear one more bi polar tell me that they have a disease that makes them blow up in screaming anger ( "it is not related to being sinful at all lynnie") I think I will throw up. I could probably think of a few more modern variations on sins that go back to the garden if I tried. But Wayne is probably right, we all are steeped in this degraded culture to some degree and might not be up to amending confessions.


----------



## JennyG (Nov 24, 2009)

I didn't follow the other thread, but Lynnie I think that's a great metaphor which exactly hits a great truth.
It's not to take away from the importance of the confessions, but yes, your daughter is just at the age when she should be imbibing scripture above all else as her necessary food. 
I know God gave me at that age an amazingly retentive memory, - but only now do I realise why, and I often grieve for what might have been if (instead of miscellaneous poetry, Shakespeare etc) I had only used it the way I should have, for the scriptures. What are we doing messing about with other books, when we could be filling all our hearts and thoughts with God's own word...?


----------

