# Why not say it like it is.



## Joseph Scibbe (May 12, 2009)

I am not sure this is the right section; so if it is not, please move it to a more suitable one.

With all due respect why is it that we dont say what we truly want. I have seen people say things like "We need to get back to the confessions" or "You dont line up with 'historical' Christianity". Why can we not just say, go to the Scriptures. While I think both history and confessions are good, our understanding ought to be first tought from the view laid out in the Word and then expounded on by such means.


----------



## Albatross (May 12, 2009)

Unashamed 116 said:


> I am not sure this is the right section; so if it is not, please move it to a more suitable one.
> 
> With all due respect why is it that we dont say what we truly want. I have seen people say things like "We need to get back to the confessions" or "You dont line up with 'historical' Christianity". Why can we not just say, go to the Scriptures. While I think both history and confessions are good, our understanding ought to be first tought from the view laid out in the Word and then expounded on by such means.



I agree and I find it is due to the confessions and historical Christians being elevated to 1a. rather than a clear 2. #2 to Scripture, that is.

Don't take this too mean I am not thankful for what has come before.


----------



## Pergamum (May 12, 2009)

Getting back to the Scriptures is made easier by first getting back to a fine summary of the Scriptures.


----------



## Hippo (May 12, 2009)

And our understanding of the scriptures has to be through the lens of the Church, and that means the confessions.

On your own you can come up with any kind of mad position by dipping into the Bible.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 12, 2009)

The problem comes about when you have competing viewpoints saying "I'm just going back to the Bible." The (good) confessions are built upon the foundation of Scripture. It is likewise helpful to see where the godly man before us have stood. Sure there is the problem of elevating the confessions over Scripture, but w/o the confessions we have the opposite extreme -- the "just me and my Bible" mentality that seeks to live apart from historical and ecclesiastical parameters.

G.I. Williamson has a good illustration in his helpful study guide to the Heidelberg Catechism. He compares the confessions to a road map. A map is (hopefully) a faithful product of those who have gone before you and what they have written down in an attempt to represent the geographical landscape of an area. Can you find your way around without that map to assist you? Sure, but you miss out on the wisdom of those who have gone before you.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (May 12, 2009)

> "We need to get back to the confessions" or "You dont line up with 'historical' Christianity". Why can we not just say, go to the Scriptures. While I think both history and confessions are good, our understanding ought to be first tought from the view laid out in the Word and then expounded on by such means.



It's easier to say "We need to get back to the confessions" or "You dont line up with 'historical' Christianity" than it is to show where scriptures say what. Much more difficult.


----------



## OPC'n (May 12, 2009)

I agree that we should go to Scripture, but we should have our confessions in order to point out what we believe. Without the confessions you have no fences around your belief system. Everyone has a confession even if it isn't in written form...of course no one likes to admit that but everyone does. Just like everyone has a systematic theology.


----------



## ADKing (May 12, 2009)

Among professing Christians from other traditions I do largely attempt to show doctrines out of the Bible. If the Westminster confession is not the confession of his faith it is useful to give pithy definitions and answers but would not be regarded as authoritative in any sense by the person. It is also my practice to attempt to demonstrate to those in my congregation how our confessional standards are derived from the Bible. This is done assuming the correctness of our confession and a proper respect and deference for it since it is the confession of the church they have joined. 

Within confessional churches, however, (and especially among office bearers) there is a presumption that the confession is the confession of their faith. It should be the norm that office bearers understand the biblical reasoning in the confessions and agree with them. In this context it is very appropriate to remind them what it is that they have professed and sworn that they believe.


----------



## Tim (May 13, 2009)

Unashamed 116 said:


> Why can we not just say, go to the Scriptures. While I think both history and confessions are good, our understanding ought to be first tought from the view laid out in the Word and then expounded on by such means.



This is an important topic because it gets at the root differences between confessional people and non-confessional people.

The problem that I see is that both would say that they are Biblical. But if you ask people what they believe the Bible teaches, they have different answers. The Calvinist and the Arminian both say that they follow the Bible. That is why one needs a confession.

Edit: regarding root differences leading to different doctrines, our point of view would be that conscientious Arminians haven't really based their thinking on scripture. But they would say that they did. And that is why confessions are needed. We then would compare the doctrinal understanding and to do this we would need a common source of information. That is the scripture. 

This summarizes that you would start with the confessions, but this would ultimately lead back to the scripture in a useful manner.


----------

