# How Can We Be Sure the Westminster Standards are True?



## Myson (Dec 7, 2017)

Hello all! I'm fairly new here so forgive me if I don't follow protocols in this.

Recently, I had a friend who is Greek Orthodox ask me a question that has quite honestly floored me. They asked, "How can you be sure that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one?" I can answer why the Bible is reliable, how it came into existence, and how its primacy in the church has never been contested, and how it is self-authenticating, but not how our _interpretation_ of it is accurate. In short, by what authority do we have to claim that the Westminster Standards are _more_ accurate that the 1689 Confession? Or any other, less-than-confessional standard? We might say, "The Bible," but everyone else says that as well! Is it that our methods of interpretation are more correct? If so, then what are those methods? And how do we know _they_ are better? Ultimately, I have an epistemological problem of authority on my hands that won't be resolved by turning the question around on the asker.

My title may be a little misleading. I guess what I'm really asking is, if you put all of the Protestant denominations in a pile, and you said, "Which one should everyone choose," what standard do we have to say that the WCF is the right one since "The Bible" is what every standard theoretically holds to? Scripture certainly interprets Scripture, but how do we know for certain that all of what we have to say on the matter is the correct "maturation" of the old apostolic faith, especially when, descriptively speaking, all branches of Protestantism would use the same standard? How can we know, in terms of authority, that we should stick to what we have and not be persuaded by Baptists or Wesleyans, Lutherans, or Pentecostals? How do we know our method is the right one, above all others? Especially when the rest of our brothers are equally convinced? Should we simply say that the plurality of interpretations isn't a problem at all and that everyone else is either malacious or dumb? Or is there some way that says, "We can be objectively certain that you are wrong for X, Y, and X reasons"?

Any help on this at all would be great. Thanks!

JMT


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 7, 2017)

I think short of God coming down to confirm to your friend that the WCF is the correct version you would have to show how it interprets Scripture with other Scripture. Keep in mind the WCF isn't infallible or inerrant. But it was written by highly intelligent men who were devoted to the preservation of God's truth. There would be only a handful of doctrinal differences from some of the other confessions which you could use Scripture to show how the WCF accurately interprets Scripture. But good luck really....if Sproul couldn't convince MacArthur of infant baptism then it shows the uphill journey you will be taking. In short, I don't mind explaining why I hold to the WCF to people, but if they don't want to believe it's accurate then I move on. I personally feel I have to be convinced in what I believe and understand it.


----------



## Myson (Dec 7, 2017)

I see that, but I'm just worried that my faith in this standard may be unwarranted. Certainly justified, but epistemologically, how do we know? And if we say, "Well because the Bible seems clear to us," by what standard can we say, "Objectively speaking, we can KNOW the Bible says this beyond any shadow of a doubt." Whether or not we're trying to convince others is another matter. All I'm wondering is the warrant for confidence in our own readings that don't lead to some kind of individualistic pluralism, that everyone "interprets what is right in their own eyes."


----------



## KMK (Dec 7, 2017)

Myson said:


> How do we know our method is the right one, above all others? Especially when the rest of our brothers are equally convinced?



Who is 'we' and who is 'our brothers'?


----------



## Myson (Dec 7, 2017)

"We" technically means any who believes their interpretation over another, but more specifically, we as Reformed Christians. "Our brothers" means those of another persuasion such as dispensationalists, baptists, charismatics, Wesleyans, etc. Those Protestants who would agree with us on the core doctrines such as Inerrancy, Trinity, Divinity of Christ etc. Sorry for not being clearer!


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 7, 2017)

Myson said:


> Hello all! I'm fairly new here so forgive me if I don't follow protocols in this.
> 
> Recently, I had a friend who is Greek Orthodox ask me a question that has quite honestly floored me. They asked, "How can you be sure that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one?" I can answer why the Bible is reliable, how it came into existence, and how its primacy in the church has never been contested, and how it is self-authenticating, but not how our _interpretation_ of it is accurate. In short, by what authority do we have to claim that the Westminster Standards are _more_ accurate that the 1689 Confession? Or any other, less-than-confessional standard? We might say, "The Bible," but everyone else says that as well! Is it that our methods of interpretation are more correct? If so, then what are those methods? And how do we know _they_ are better? Ultimately, I have an epistemological problem of authority on my hands that won't be resolved by turning the question around on the asker.
> 
> ...


J. M.,

The Westminster Confession contains the answer to your concern in Chapter I, sections VI, VII, and IX:


> VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
> 
> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]
> 
> IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]



The rest of the chapter is worth your perusal as well. May the Lord grant you clarity and peace about these matters.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 7, 2017)

I'm barely a laymen myself, but I would look at the history of how the WCF came to be, and who it was who complied it. When we read the names of those involved in writing the Confessions it is a who's who of the Puritan world of that time. It was not put together willy nilly, but each point was debated and it took 4 years to accomplish. Add to that, the historic creeds and confessions were written to combat the heresies that came along over the years. To affirm the faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 7, 2017)

http://www.semperreformanda.com/creeds/list-of-the-westminster-divines/

Consider the timeframe and compare that to any other confession.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 7, 2017)

J.M.,

The short answer is that Scripture is the ultimate authority. When teaching and preaching, we should refer to and have our foundation in the Scripture rather than the Standards. That does not mean that the Standards are not valuable - they are! But we should avoid saying that something must be true because the Standards teach them. Ultimately, we believe the Standards because they _reflect the teaching of the Bible_ rather than because they are independently authoritative. So we use the formulations of the Standards are "shorthand" for what is set out in greater detail (and in many places) in the Bible.

So when speaking to those who do not confess the same Standards, we should point them back to the Bible, which teaches those doctrines.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

Myson said:


> Hello all! I'm fairly new here so forgive me if I don't follow protocols in this.
> 
> Recently, I had a friend who is Greek Orthodox ask me a question that has quite honestly floored me. They asked, "How can you be sure that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one?" I can answer why the Bible is reliable, how it came into existence, and how its primacy in the church has never been contested, and how it is self-authenticating, but not how our _interpretation_ of it is accurate. In short, by what authority do we have to claim that the Westminster Standards are _more_ accurate that the 1689 Confession? Or any other, less-than-confessional standard? We might say, "The Bible," but everyone else says that as well! Is it that our methods of interpretation are more correct? If so, then what are those methods? And how do we know _they_ are better? Ultimately, I have an epistemological problem of authority on my hands that won't be resolved by turning the question around on the asker.
> 
> ...


Are the Westminister Confession and the 1689 Baptist Confession regarded as being equally true in reformed circles then?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 7, 2017)

The LBC is a 'particular baptist' document; it is not reformed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Are the Westminister Confession and the 1689 Baptist Confession regarded as being equally true in reformed circles then?


No. That is impossible, given that they contradict each other on various issues (e.g. baptism). I view the 1689 as being wrong on baptism and church government, but not because it is different from the WCF - rather because I think it does not reflect the teaching of Scripture on that subject. Scripture is my ultimate authority, and the WCF is a faithful summary of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2017)

This is a really good question. I'm going to try to give an answer that is not too difficult to follow.

I think there are certain fundamental truths that arise about the nature of the Godhead, the Scriptures, salvation, the Covenants, etc that form a sort of basic grid from which theology proceeds.

For one thing, a Christian has to settle on whether or not God has communicated in His Word at a level that a person, using the ordinary skills that we use for reading, can communicate truth to him. This does not mean that this occurs without the use of teachers but there is still a conviction that there is not some hidden body of knowledge, called "theology" or "liturgy", that the really spiritual or the Church can somehow have as a deposit that is sort of outside the Scriptures themselves.

Given that conviction, we learn from the Scriptures that they are breathed out by God. What ever we might say about any other form of authority or deposit of tradition or truth, we know that Scripture is revealed to be breathed out by God and useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work. 

The Church historically understood the Scriptures to be that touchstone upon which all other teachings, however profitable, had to be adjudicated. Over time, however, things have a way of being added in terms of theological overreach or other mystical or liturgical practices that took on a life of their own. Like the Jews before them, some Church men started to study more what the Church taught about Godly living or salvation or the nature of the Church and then built further and further edifices upon those. Some traditions ensconce those so much that they started to take on the idea that the Church itself had this quality of its tradition being of the same nature as the Scriptures themselves.

Now, it's important to remember that these things took place over centuries and so a number of Biblical truths were worked through by the Church to wrestle with the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and other cardinal doctrines. We can see God's faithfulness in the Church where certain Christian "givens" were fought over and deposited for our benefit: all grounded in and out of Scripture and not grounded in the teaching of the authority of Church as Church but the Church as it properly taught God's truth.

As historical theology progressed, however, there were a lot of theological and political developments. The notion that there is some unbroken, coherent stream of "tradition" is a bunch of snake oil sold by Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxy designed for those who sell anachronistic views of Church history and their adherents who eat up the idea that they are called to simply trust what the Church tells them without any reference to the teachings being grounded in either real history or the Scriptures.

A very rough thumbnail of the Reformation needs to be seen not as a *revolution* of theology but a reformation of the theology that the Church had taught and which had existed in streams of theological discussion. In point of fact, the counter-reformation by the Roman Catholics, for instance, has more modern elements to it than the Reformed faith. It even has more "pulled out of our collective magisterial behind" dogmas as recently as this past century.

So how do you sort it all out?

1. I think the Reformed Confessions are written with the conviction that God's Word is clear on matters of salvation and that the Scriptures can be exegeted and that theology is something that can be "fact checked" against the Word. The Confessions serve as standard expositions of the Word on what it teaches. A person can be walked through the text and it can be demonstrated that the Scriptures teach these things.

2. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy rest on the notion of the Church having a tradition alongside the Scriptures that is not fact checkable. History is marshaled in an ad hoc fashion to create the illusion of an unbroken line of practice or belief. Furthermore, in the case of Roman Catholicism, the Church is so arrogant about its dogma that it states that the Scriptural logic it uses to arrive at something can be wrong but all that matters is what the Church teaches.

3. The Reformed Churches can also be shown to be catholic in the best sense. They are not fresh innovations of theology but stand in the Christian Church's historical tradition as the Scriptures were opened and its theology was discussed and hammered out over the centuries.

4. Studying the Word over time along with a proper use of historical theology will give some assurances that you're not simply in some sort of schismatic sect.

5. Finally, and most importantly, as Luther's hymn says: "The Spirit and the gifts are ours Who with us sideth."

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 7, 2017)

I don't _accept_ a single word in the WCF.


----------



## Edward (Dec 7, 2017)

You can start with the Scriptural proofs for the WCF. Is the text consistent with the scripture, or not? As the Rev. Mr. Greco pointed out, Scripture, not the WCF, is the authority. 

The WCF is a faithful summary of scripture, not a replacement. How do we know it is a faithful summary? We compare it to the Scriptures.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Are the Westminister Confession and the 1689 Baptist Confession regarded as being equally true in reformed circles then?


How could two things that contradict each other be true at the same time? The LBCF reflects most accurately the teaching of Scripture, of course. The WCF, then, is wrong in the parts where it contradicts the LBCF.
There may be some here who disagree with me on this: they are wrong to do so.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## py3ak (Dec 7, 2017)

Myson said:


> Recently, I had a friend who is Greek Orthodox ask me a question that has quite honestly floored me. They asked, "How can you be sure that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one?" I can answer why the Bible is reliable, how it came into existence, and how its primacy in the church has never been contested, and how it is self-authenticating, but not how our _interpretation_ of it is accurate.



It seems to me the presupposition behind the question may be that Scripture is inexplicable. Change the question: _Can God communicate clearly to fallen human beings_? If the answer to that is "no" then _every_ religion should just pack up shop. If the answer is "yes" then confessional Protestantism, which makes the clarity and finality of Scripture as God's self-revelation a basic part of its doctrinal commitment, is clearly the best game in town.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 7, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> I don't _accept_ a single word in the WCF.


Even the part about the Trinity?


----------



## bookslover (Dec 7, 2017)

fredtgreco said:


> J.M.,
> 
> The short answer is that Scripture is the ultimate authority. When teaching and preaching, we should refer to and have our foundation in the Scripture rather than the Standards. That does not mean that the Standards are not valuable - they are! But we should avoid saying that something must be true because the Standards teach them. Ultimately, we believe the Standards because they _reflect the teaching of the Bible_ rather than because they are independently authoritative. So we use the formulations of the Standards are "shorthand" for what is set out in greater detail (and in many places) in the Bible.
> 
> So when speaking to those who do not confess the same Standards, we should point them back to the Bible, which teaches those doctrines.



This is an excellent answer, Fred. It honors the Scriptures while showing the usefulness of the Standards.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 7, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Even the part about the Trinity?


The scriptures teach the three persons of the Godhead and the WCF accurately summarizes this teaching. If we accept a confession axiomatically, then apply it to the Bible, we engage in eisegesis.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 7, 2017)

Myson said:


> if you put all of the Protestant denominations in a pile, and you said, "Which one should everyone choose," what standard do we have to say that the WCF is the right one since "The Bible" is what every standard theoretically holds to?



I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet that this is a common Orthodox and Catholic trap question. I've had several people try it on me. Since all Protestants claim the Bible is true, but they believe differently, how do you know which to pick? The argument is designed to make you admit that maybe the church should have the ultimate say on what is true.

Of course, those folks have their own dilemma: Which church do you pick? Orthodox or Roman? And in what century?

More importantly, the question makes one glaring, wrong assumption. It presupposes that we are not able to study the Bible and see which doctrine is true, or that it isn't reasonable to expect anyone to put that much effort into Bible study. We just have to pick, and who can tell which is true? So the argument goes.

Well, the Bible is not that dense. The Spirit speaks clearly. I can tell what's true, and so can you, if we are willing to put in the effort and study the Bible. That's the best response, followed by the line, "Would you like to study it with me?"

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## timfost (Dec 8, 2017)

Some really great answers here.

I spoke with a pastor a couple years back who was anything but reformed. He said concerning the five points of Dort that he disagrees with each of our adjectives to the points. He made it very clear that he wasn't interested in hearing an appeal to confessions or our favorite theologians but only to scripture.

This was not a problem because we believe our confessions are simply systematic formulations of scripture's teachings. But what is a confession? Could this pastor himself avoid _interpreting_ scripture? The minute he opened his mouth to converse _about_ scripture he was _confessing_. In fact, the minute he _thought_ about scripture, he was using his confession. But our confessions were wrought by assemblies of men carefully dividing the word of God. Our confessions are worded for precision and to be inclusive of diversity (spend some time at the PB to see this in action!). This man was confessing words wrought from his individual formulations.

Once we view our confessions in their proper place, they are a tool. They are checks and balances. They unify. Appealing to our confessions to those outside of the reformed faith is not only generally a bad idea, but it gives the impression that the confession itself is the ultimate authority, which it is not.

We were able to appeal to scripture against each point made by this pastor. He didn't have much to say in the end against us.

Some other things to consider:

1. How can we be sure? First, we don't need to prove anything to anyone. Rather, we should ask ourselves, "is what I confess faithful to scripture?" The validity of our confession is not based on _proving _its content. Second, we are not to place "faith" in our confession. The Triune God is the object of our faith. Confessions should help us articulate where we place our faith. The confession should be _faithful _to scripture.

2. What is faith? Faith has three parts as scripture teaches us. Heidelberg 21 summarizes:

"True faith is not only a [*1*]* sure knowledge* whereby I [*2*] *hold for truth [i.e. assent to]* all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty [*3*] *trust*, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits."

In faith, we _believe God at His word_. We believe and therefore confess. "And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, 'I believed and therefore I spoke,' we also believe and therefore speak..." (2 Cor. 4:13) Can this faith be quantified? According to science, no. Do we observe faith or the _fruit _of faith? Is the knowledge of faith _natural_ to fallen man or _supernatural_? Too often we try to impose scientific models on faith (which cannot be seen and embraces promises not seen). When we cannot _prove_ what we believe, we often doubt. But why try to _prove _something that cannot be proven according to the knowledge of man? Can science even come to any consensus wherein a theory is proven beyond reproof?

3. My church _subscribes_ to the _Three Forms_. Could I subscribe to the WCF? Probably not the original in its entirety (I like the American revisions). But do I _confess_ what the WCF teaches? Absolutely, since as a whole it accurately speaks what the Bible teaches. The more you get away from putting faith in a confession and rather using it how it was intended, your conversations with your friend should always go back to the fundamental question, "what do the scriptures teach?"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 8, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> The scriptures teach the three persons of the Godhead and the WCF accurately summarizes this teaching. If we accept a confession axiomatically, then apply it to the Bible, we engage in eisegesis.


So you do accept some words in the WCF?


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 8, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> The scriptures teach the three persons of the Godhead and the WCF accurately summarizes this teaching. If we accept a confession axiomatically, then apply it to the Bible, we engage in eisegesis.


If I understand you correctly you are saying the same thing that Tim Fost said above, that our faith and interpretation comes from the Scriptures, and that the WCF is a guide to help us ? I draw that conclusion because your profile states that you adhere to the Westminster Standards.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 8, 2017)

You are spot on. I love the WCF, but worry that our drive for the best doctrine puts the cart in front of the horse.


----------



## chuckd (Dec 8, 2017)

Jack K said:


> I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet that this is a common Orthodox and Catholic trap question. I've had several people try it on me. Since all Protestants claim the Bible is true, but they believe differently, how do you know which to pick? The argument is designed to make you admit that maybe the church should have the ultimate say on what is true.
> 
> Of course, those folks have their own dilemma: Which church do you pick? Orthodox or Roman? And in what century?
> 
> ...


This is the root of the question posed to the OP. Of course, as an Orthodox Christian, his friend would say the Orthodox church. To be honest, out of the two who believe the church is the final authority, Orthodox or Roman, I would say the Orthodox have the upper hand. From that perspective, the creed should not have been changed without another council.

A couple of other unrelated thoughts.
1. Given the church is the final authority, which ecumenical councils should we accept as handed down by "the" church? Why those and not others?
1a. Councils have erred. How do you explain how the church is the final authority yet they can err?
2. There are multiple "schools" within Orthodoxy. How can you be sure that a specific school's of interpretation of Scripture is the right one?


----------



## timfost (Dec 8, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> I love the EGG...



Especially over medium.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 8, 2017)

Myson said:


> Hello all! I'm fairly new here so forgive me if I don't follow protocols in this.
> 
> Recently, I had a friend who is Greek Orthodox ask me a question that has quite honestly floored me. They asked, "How can you be sure that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one?" I can answer why the Bible is reliable, how it came into existence, and how its primacy in the church has never been contested, and how it is self-authenticating, but not how our _interpretation_ of it is accurate. In short, by what authority do we have to claim that the Westminster Standards are _more_ accurate that the 1689 Confession? Or any other, less-than-confessional standard? We might say, "The Bible," but everyone else says that as well! Is it that our methods of interpretation are more correct? If so, then what are those methods? And how do we know _they_ are better? Ultimately, I have an epistemological problem of authority on my hands that won't be resolved by turning the question around on the asker.
> 
> ...



I think in order to have confidence in the body of teaching of the Standards, you have to believe that there IS a pattern of sound doctrine (2 Timothy 1:13); and that God has promised he will preserve it through his church. If you are settled in Protestantism and then Calvinism, you're on your way to Covenant theology. Once you're settled that you do hold to a covenantal view of biblical history, then you should be on your way to confessionalism due to your view of the Church and how God has preserved the pattern of sound doctrine. Confidence in the Standards as the fruition of all that body of truth that was won before, truths that Protestant, Calvinistic people hold to, comes from understanding how God has promised to work. He hasn't left his people in the dark. But Christians who haven't come to covenant theology won't see that; and they'll be troubled by questions regarding "who has the right interpretation of the Bible."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 8, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> You are spot on. I love the WCF, but worry that our drive for the best doctrine puts the cart in front of the horse.


All of the various Creeds and Confessions are summations of what has been historically held by the church over time, but none of them are in addition to the scriptures, as they alone are inspired for doctrines and practices.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 8, 2017)

I think Jack and Fred have hit the nail on the head with this one. The question presupposes the answer of the church being the final arbiter. But the EO follower (and the RCC, too!) have to make up their mind to follow that church as an authority. They still make an existential commitment to a final authority. Everyone has to do that, whether that authority be the church, human reason (in the case of the "atheist"), or Scripture. That commitment involves a faith in that authority. In other words, they are asking the wrong question. The EO and the RCC's final authority isn't Scripture, it is their church, because, on their views, we can only know what Scripture says through the church. The right question is this: what is the final authority? We can ask about the proper interpretation of Scripture (and the answer comes from Scripture itself!), but only after we ask the "final authority" question.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 8, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> You are spot on. I love the WCF, but worry that our drive for the best doctrine puts the cart in front of the horse.



There's certainly a risk for this to happen. Pride in knowledge comes from all places including the accumulation of knowledge from the Bible itself. If all we are doing is accumulating knowledge in order to be the superior person, it's all dung for the accumulator. However, if we are accumulating knowledge in order to know God and his purposes fully it is profitable. 

If you think about it, once you go from reading the Scripture to explaining it (the preaching of God's word in worship, Bible studies, Sunday school, confessions, spreading the Gospel, etc) you are giving a confession of what the Bible states. We are constantly doing this. We don't just read the Bible aloud then close the book and send everyone home. I think our motive and sincerity in learning God's word is important....are we doing it in obedience to God or to make us look superior? I think we all fall into both camps at times I know I have. 

I believe those who wrote the WCF and similar ones did so to glorify God and expect those who adhere to it to do the same leaving their pride in the ditch. I also believe that the writers of the WCF expected the readers to have their Bibles out in order to confirm what they wrote was Scripturally supported. I believe they would have thought it folly for us not to do so. 

In the end, I find the WCF a faithful composite of what the Bible states and therefore what I believe. There is really nothing in the WCF that I don't agree with. These men did an excellent job in putting down on paper what the church believes in. I know I personally couldn't improve upon their work.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 8, 2017)

No disagreement.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 8, 2017)

Well noted Sarah. The argument for a Confession goes like this:

1. 2 Tim 3:16-18 teaches us that all Scriptures is breathed out by God and given for our upbuilding. It presumes that the Scriptures itself can be understood and applied.

2. Ephesians 4 teaches us that Christ gives gifts to the Church in the form of teachers and pastors toward the end of the unity of the faith.

3. If Scripture is clear and there are men trained and gifted by Christ and His Spirit to explain the Scriptures then we should be able to confess the same things in the Scripture together as a Church.

It is very strange, on the one hand, to claim that a person believes in the Scriptures and that they can come to a knowledge of what they teach and then be suspicious that a Church that believes the same has actually _written down what they believe the Scriptures teach.
_
There ought to be an expectation of people to go to a person with knowledge of the Scriptures and a "track record" of following Christ as a mature individual that a Christian can ask questions of that person. We should be able to rely upon the understanding and handling of the Scriptures in the same way we have some confidence in physicians to diagnose a medical illness. The Puritans called minister physicians of the soul because they had confidence that if they studied the "body of divinity" that you could put your finger on the nature of a person's spiritual struggles and issues and point them in the correct direction about what the Scriptures teach on a subject.

What is the nature of man? Should we be in doubt about such a question or does Scripture teach us something that can be written down and remembered?

What is the nature of the Trinity? Does it matter? Does it relate to salvation? Should we write such insights down?

What relevance is it that Christ is fully God and fully Man to salvation? What relevance is it that Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant? What is a Covenant? Does the answer to any of these questions matter and should we write them down?

It is folly to state that you have a lot of confidence or trust in the Scriptures but that it's only valuable as a theoretical document because the moment you come to any conclusions about what it teaches then you're in the realm of fallible opinion. A confession serves as a critical component of helping provide a way to understand what the Scriptures teach so that application can be made into the lives of people.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Edward (Dec 8, 2017)

chuckd said:


> Given the church is the final authority



Scripture is the final authority. You don't have to accept the other side's "givens" before engaging them.


----------



## chuckd (Dec 11, 2017)

Edward said:


> Scripture is the final authority. You don't have to accept the other side's "givens" before engaging them.


I know I don't have to. Just one tool.


----------



## Myson (Dec 11, 2017)

chuckd said:


> This is the root of the question posed to the OP. Of course, as an Orthodox Christian, his friend would say the Orthodox church. To be honest, out of the two who believe the church is the final authority, Orthodox or Roman, I would say the Orthodox have the upper hand. From that perspective, the creed should not have been changed without another council.
> 
> A couple of other unrelated thoughts.
> 1. Given the church is the final authority, which ecumenical councils should we accept as handed down by "the" church? Why those and not others?
> ...


That's very helpful. It's always easier to see the grass as more consistent on the other side, when they are in the same boat. Thanks!


----------



## Myson (Dec 11, 2017)

Jack K said:


> I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet that this is a common Orthodox and Catholic trap question. I've had several people try it on me. Since all Protestants claim the Bible is true, but they believe differently, how do you know which to pick? The argument is designed to make you admit that maybe the church should have the ultimate say on what is true.
> 
> Of course, those folks have their own dilemma: Which church do you pick? Orthodox or Roman? And in what century?
> 
> ...



Thanks so much! I should've applied my training in presuppositionalism more thoroughly on this one. Maybe it's just my fascination with the Orthodox Church and their liturgy that I tend to not think critically of their practices, and when I am confronted on something I believe to be true, I haven't done the homework ahead of time to "give an answer." Thanks again, your suggestion on making it an evangelistic tool was very helpful.


----------



## Myson (Dec 11, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> I'm barely a laymen myself, but I would look at the history of how the WCF came to be, and who it was who complied it. When we read the names of those involved in writing the Confessions it is a who's who of the Puritan world of that time. It was not put together willy nilly, but each point was debated and it took 4 years to accomplish. Add to that, the historic creeds and confessions were written to combat the heresies that came along over the years. To affirm the faith.


That's such a helpful reminder that the confession didn't come out of thin air but was prayerfully waded through for years. Especially with so many people involved as well! I think that's a powerful assurance that the Spirit was moving in his people.


----------



## Myson (Dec 11, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think in order to have confidence in the body of teaching of the Standards, you have to believe that there IS a pattern of sound doctrine (2 Timothy 1:13); and that God has promised he will preserve it through his church. If you are settled in Protestantism and then Calvinism, you're on your way to Covenant theology. Once you're settled that you do hold to a covenantal view of biblical history, then you should be on your way to confessionalism due to your view of the Church and how God has preserved the pattern of sound doctrine. Confidence in the Standards as the fruition of all that body of truth that was won before, truths that Protestant, Calvinistic people hold to, comes from understanding how God has promised to work. He hasn't left his people in the dark. But Christians who haven't come to covenant theology won't see that; and they'll be troubled by questions regarding "who has the right interpretation of the Bible."


I hadn't thought about using the Covenants as a hermeneutic; mostly because I'm not as confidently schooled in them as I would like to be. You make a great point however - If there is a pattern of sound doctrine, and God has made a promise to his church, then shouldn't we expect there to be a consistent doctrine taught/built upon through the ages? Thanks for that insight

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Myson (Dec 11, 2017)

Something else I learned in this (for anyone else who might have questions about it on their own) was the proper role of Church Tradition in these debates. Both the Reformed and the Roman/Eastern churches believe that the Church Fathers are authoritative, but in vastly different ways. For the latter, the Fathers and early creeds were authoritative as Kings, meant to lord over us what we are to believe and what we are to deny. For Calvin, and later Reformers, we see the Church Fathers as _servant _leaders. That is, they do not lord over us beliefs, but rather they serve us to give testimony to the Scriptures and the Christ they proclaim. As 1 Corinthians 3:21-23 states,

"So let noone boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."

The main point is that, "All are yours," meaning they exist, not to be lords over us, but to bear witnesses to Jesus for us. This was a lightbulb moment for me, and one that really helped me see the proper role of the Fathers and their influence on the faith. While they are authoritative, they are authoritative only insofar as they are consistent with the Scriptures. This is _servant_ leadership, as Christ Himself bore witness to his Father. Likewise, no one should look to the Church Fathers and say, "We know this to be true because Clement and Origen agreed on this," but rather, "We know this to be true because the Scriptures are clear on it, and to prove that they have been clear, see the great cloud of witnesses who have been enlightened by the Spirit in this area, and developed it further, silencing those who disagreed with God's word."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jonpeter (Jan 8, 2018)

Myson said:


> I see that, but I'm just worried that my faith in this standard may be unwarranted. Certainly justified, but epistemologically, how do we know? And if we say, "Well because the Bible seems clear to us," by what standard can we say, "Objectively speaking, we can KNOW the Bible says this beyond any shadow of a doubt." Whether or not we're trying to convince others is another matter. All I'm wondering is the warrant for confidence in our own readings that don't lead to some kind of individualistic pluralism, that everyone "interprets what is right in their own eyes."


Hi

A principle of hermeneutics says: the scriptures interprets itselfs, it means that the scriptures are infallible and men are fallible, so our interpretations are fallible. The only man infallible is Christ. This principle was defined by reformers agains roman catholic church that says that they are the ones that give the rigth interpretation of the scriptures

These words are from pastor Javier Muñoz (used translator):
If I say that my body of doctrine is inerrant, I deny total depravity and proclaim myself an apostle. On the other hand, I am absolutely convinced that what I believe is biblically correct, otherwise my conscience would condemn me. I must live in the tension of those two realities. In doing so, I totally depend on the Holy Spirit. I live confident in him. And therefore I can be humble like Christ, which is my greatest goal, because it is the goal of Christ for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2018)

jonpeter said:


> If I say that my body of doctrine is inerrant, I deny total depravity and proclaim myself an apostle.



I am not sure in what sense you are using the word 'inerrant'. It is usually a word that is used about the Scriptures, not a confession. Do I deny total depravity if I believe that WCF Chapter 6, Paragraph 4 is inerrant?

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions."


----------



## jonpeter (Jan 10, 2018)

KMK said:


> I am not sure in what sense you are using the word 'inerrant'. It is usually a word that is used about the Scriptures, not a confession. Do I deny total depravity if I believe that WCF Chapter 6, Paragraph 4 is inerrant?
> 
> "From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions."


I mean that in our interpretation of the bible we can have errors, because we are fallen beings and we are not free of mistakes. But at the same time I'm convinced that my confession of faith is true

I have faith that what bible says is true as its God's word
But I dont have that kind of faith in my ability to interpret the bible because I'm a fallen being. If I think that my ability to interpret the bible is perfect, then I'm not consistent with my doctrine of being corrupted by sin

I must be convinced and at the same time must be humble


----------

