Can one be too confessional?

[thistle93]

Let me first say that I think there is great benefit and usefulness to having church confessions and I am not one of those anti-confessional types. What I find somewhat concerning is that as Protestants we rebuke Roman Catholic dogma which views church traditional writings on the same level of authority as Scripture and yet it seems many times when someone ask a doctrinal question on this forum it seems prominently the answer is what a particular confession states rather than referring to what Scripture states. Now I know that none of those on this board would say that confessions are on par with or inspired like Scripture but should we not be quicker to point to Scripture than sections of confessions (which do have a place but under Scripture). Thoughts?


For His Glory-
Matthew

 

[Quatchu]

The thing is unlike most RC writings. The confessions simple echo what scripture already says. So if we truly believe that our confessions are Biblical summaries of scripture then no we can not be to confessional. It would be like saying someone is "too biblical." The reformations issue with tradition was not simple because tradition=bad but because it was extra biblical tradition that received its authority from councils and not the word of God.

 

[OPC'n]

My thoughts: I can see how this is true. The confessions are often times used more than Scripture here. It doesn't really bother me since those who wrote the confession by which I stand were godly men who wanted to preserve Scriptural interpretation and were extremely smart. The writings are not infallible, and if there is something said in them with which I don't agree, then I turn to the Scriptures for research. However, I normally turn to the Scriptures and commentaries first when studying a subject.

 

[KMK]

yet it seems many times when someone ask a doctrinal question on this forum it seems prominently the answer is what a particular confession states rather than referring to what Scripture states.

If you are a member of this board, you have agreed that you believe your particular reformed confession does faithfully represent what Scripture teaches. It is assumed that all members of PB have studied their confession and 'confess' that it teaches what Scripture teaches.

This allows us the freedom of having discussions without endless proof texts if we want to. Obviously, none of us would discuss theology this way if we were talking to unbelievers or those who have never read the Reformed confessions.

 

[Jack K]

If we are agreed that the confessions accurately summarize biblical truth, it is often far more advantageous to simply cite the confession than to go through the entire process of proving a point from Scripture, text by text, taking into account the necessary context and the scope of the entire Bible (which is the right way to handle biblical arguments). So the confessions provide a wonderfully convenient way for us to answer theological questions quickly, accurately, and with argeement. That's one big reason, I think, why they're often used here and in other settings.

That said, I too usually prefer to hear arguments straight from the Bible rather than from the confessions where it's practical to do that. As helpful as our confessions are, we don't want them to become (1) an excuse to be lazy about Bible scholarship or (2) a way to summarily dismiss people who're trying to engage the Bible but are not using confessional language. The confessions are a brief summary, after all. They don't contain the richness of the whole Bible, and for every item the confessions touch on there are biblical examples, applications and perspectives that the confessions simply never mention. So it certainly is possible to be "too confessional" if the confessions draw one away from the richness of the Scripture rather than to it.

(This doesn't even address those who love using the confessions to play "gotcha" and are eager to gloat over finding error in others. There's certainly a place for defending truth, but that attitude is wrong. I don't think anyone here, though, would defend that kind of confessionalism.)

 

[sevenzedek]

This used to bother me when I first joined PB. Then my view of the Standards changed. If the Standards are a thoroughly accurate summary of Christian doctrine, then they are every bit as true as the Bible itself. While I do hold to this view, I have not yet studied the Westminster Standards to the degree of full understanding and agreement.

However, I prefer to quote the Scriptures as well.

One thing I think is worth mentioning is the fact that while many quote the Standards to support their views, many more simply state their opinion so often without reference to the Scriptures or any kind of standard. Therefore, there would seem to be a presupposition latent in the OP. Why are confessional quotations targeted rather than stated opinions? I don't know the answer, but the connection might be worth some thought.

 

[MW]

Thoughts?

Your view of the supremacy of Scripture in opposition to Romish tradition is itself "confessional." You have started with a dogma and provided no appeal to Scripture to establish it. I am not criticising you; just showing the kind of dynamics which are inevitably involved with every theological discussion. If one had to prove epistemological claims every time one made a statement one would never say very much. The value of the Confession is that it provides an intramural understanding that forms the basis for further elaboration. Without it every discussion would disintegrate into a debate over "method."

 

[nicnap]

Matthew, might I suggest reading, this?

 

[jandrusk]

It might not be a bad idea to start providing the proof texts whenever we reference a given section of the standard. I'm thinking this might help the noobs out a bit.

 

[JM]

Can I just say...I love the Reformed and Particular Baptist Confessions & admit, the witness of the confessional church keeps me in line. We need to confess the faith and not start from scratch every generations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JimmyH]

Might I suggest a copy of The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms with Proof Texts. When I became a member of the PB I was not very familiar with the WCF. I went to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church website and I bought a copy of the Confessions, Catechisms with proof texts found here . Reading the Confessions with the proof texts has been very instructive in helping me to understand them. I'm an old fellow and prefer a hard copy to the digital alternative.

 

[KMK]

Matthew, might I suggest reading, this?

Cool. Only $9.39 on kindle.

 

[KMK]

Also, if you want more than the standard proof texts, this site is a goldmine regarding the Shorter Catechism: Westminster Shorter Catechism Project

 

[bookslover]

Let me first say that I think there is great benefit and usefulness to having church confessions and I am not one of those anti-confessional types. What I find somewhat concerning is that as Protestants we rebuke Roman Catholic dogma which views church traditional writings on the same level of authority as Scripture and yet it seems many times when someone ask a doctrinal question on this forum it seems prominently the answer is what a particular confession states rather than referring to what Scripture states. Now I know that none of those on this board would say that confessions are on par with or inspired like Scripture but should we not be quicker to point to Scripture than sections of confessions (which do have a place but under Scripture). Thoughts?

Hear, hear! I've met some Reformed people who may be devoted to the Scriptures, but they're absolutely obsessed with the secondary standards. It drives me nuts, sometimes (a short drive, I grant you). Even if a confession agrees exactly with the Scriptures, it's still not on the same level as the Scriptures. It's still only a man-made document. Only the Scriptures are the Scriptures. Confessions are wonderful, but there's a reason we call them secondary standards. Bible first, standards second.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Let me first say that I think there is great benefit and usefulness to having church confessions and I am not one of those anti-confessional types. What I find somewhat concerning is that as Protestants we rebuke Roman Catholic dogma which views church traditional writings on the same level of authority as Scripture and yet it seems many times when someone ask a doctrinal question on this forum it seems prominently the answer is what a particular confession states rather than referring to what Scripture states. Now I know that none of those on this board would say that confessions are on par with or inspired like Scripture but should we not be quicker to point to Scripture than sections of confessions (which do have a place but under Scripture). Thoughts?

Here is a good way to think about questions of this nature: If someone tells you that your private opinion is out of accordance with the Reformed confession, then it should drive you back to scripture to make sure that you have not misunderstood the Bible. Since further Bible study can never be a bad thing, use the admonitions of confessionalists to ensure that your understanding of scripture is correct.

Besides, as Ken has pointed out, when people say they adhere to certain confessional standards (which they profess to receive as the teaching of scripture), it is more than proper to call them to account if they violate their own professed standards.

 

[Leslie]

Many times when there are quotes the implicit argument is from confesional silence. We all agree not to argue from scriptural silence. How is confessional silence any different?

For example, when discussing the closing of the canon, it is assumed that he canon is closed for all time. Yet a non-amillennial interpretation of Revelaiton, which is permissible, mandates inspired, canonical revelaiton from the mouths of the two witnesses. The confessions just state that the canon is closed. True. It was true when it was written. It is true now. It may not be true in the future. Lack of a positive statement (that the canon may reopen) is not equivalent to assertion of a negative statement (that the canon will never reopen).

I had a conversation with an emeritus professor of Calvin College. I asked him about the CR stance on some current issues at the time. He answered question after question with quotes from memory from the confessions. I then asked him about what happened to sola scriptura. His reply was that no one ever reads the Bible anymore. It was sad. I wondered how he would feel if his wife took all their son's letters and made an intellectual summary of the contents, then expected him to accept her summary but not reread the letters. It would not be honoring to their son. Being over-confessional is not honoring to our God. He chose to reveal Himself by stories. We should not second-guess His choice.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess where you sit determines what you see. For those accustomed to hearing a person constantly quoting a Scripture verse when answering a question then it may give some confidence that the person is actually telling you what the Scriptures say.

Of course, every heretic quotes Scripture at some point. I was listening to a denial of eternal punishment recently and the person was quoting Scripture. I'm sure he convinced some people with his argument that "on the plain reading of things" he was just "teaching the Bible."

One of the things that's caused some reflection of late has been listening to Carl Trueman's lectures on Medieval Theology and the point he keeps making about Protestant arrogance. It's so common today for people to make facile arguments from one or two verses and then guffaw at the idea that there could be any deeper appreciation for the Scriptures than whatever seems to them, on the surface, to be abundantly clear. They can't read the original languages, they don't have a command of logic and, otherwise, have very little training but everyone else is an utter moron that can be blown over by what is apparently obvious to the casual observer.

The Scholastics were so named because they taught in schools. Today they might be called Academics. They're reviled by Academics and the person on the Street for being "rationalists" and not exegetes but the truth is they could do both Systematics and Exegesis. Today, most scholars only do one or the other but it's the Scholastics that are the bad guys. I'm not defending all the theology of the Scholastics but I'm only pointing out how easy it is to take cheap shots.

Something that one needs to keep in mind about an approach to theology is that it ought to have a healthy amount of both diachronical and synchronical thinking. Diachronical is that which cuts across time - it interacts with what has come before it and admits that I'm not the first person in the history of the Christian Church to pick up the Bible and interpret it. A healthy diachronical approach doesn't just swallow hook, line, and sinker everything that came before but it also needs to have a healthy respect for the work and not think that 10 minutes of consideration can easily dismiss what took lifetimes of building and interaciton to put together. The synchronical appreciation looks at theology that is true (not forgetting what came before) and looks at the new issues of our day and asks how Biblical principles are to be applied today. The problem is that some only live in what came before and some only live by what has been fashioned today.

Perhaps those that are convinced that their exegetical and systematic skills are superior to those that are quoting the Confessions slavishly ought to suggest a better way to compactly answer the common questions that we all have about the Scriptures. If you have a better way of expressing what Sanctification is then don't assume that the brother who is answering the question with a statement from a Confession doesn't know the Scriptures but that he might actually believe that it's a really good summary of what he reads in the Scriptures.

Speaking as a fool, I've read through the Scriptures at least a dozen times and continue to study them daily. I don't usually pick up the Confessions until I'm examining men or I want to see again how someone expressed some things. Why do I do this? Because I examine men for the ministry pretty regularly and I ask them questions. These are men that have given of their substance to study the Scriptures and want to be ministers and I often find them struggling to articulate key doctrines in a way that does justice to the whole of Scripture.

If I ever meet the man who actually exceeds the exegetical and systematic excellence of the Reformed confessions all by himself then I might take notice. As it is, I find it to be the case that it's easy to take pot shots. While the Reformed need to be reminded that it is still their duty to study and be convinced of the things they confess, it is also the case that those who assume too much by a quotation from the standards need to be careful. Last time I checked, it was those Churches that use Confessons that actually require the most in the preparation and examination of their ministers to properly handle the Word of God. I'm not saying that to puff out my chest but only to caution those who think they stand lest they fall.

But I suppose it's easier to see how others are blinded by their traditions than to challenge one's own confidence that what I see in my "first glance" reading of the Scriptures must surely be the case because I'm convinced of it and didn't get help from anyone else.

 

[fredtgreco]

My approach to this is:

The Secondary Standards are the most helpful resource I have seen for systematizing the Scriptures and putting them into "digestible" format. With 15 minutes prep and a Shorter Catechism, I can teach almost any Sunday school lesson on a theological topic.

Having said that, I use the Secondary standards to help me organize and present Biblical material using the Scriptures themselves. I find it far better, for example to give the context and text of the Bible than a mere quote from the Standards. People listen and believe better when that is done (I believe). That does not mean that the Standards are unimportant - in fact they are supremely important for that task.

 

[MW]

I find it far better, for example to give the context and text of the Bible than a mere quote from the Standards.

Indeed; all reformed pastors are doing this Sabbath by Sabbath. They are expounding and applying Scripture so as to feed the flock of God. Any appearance to the contrary could only be based on a glimpse of what happens in a very brief conversation relative to a point of difference which is usually only an inference from the substance of the faith. If people did not judge by appearance, but judged righteous judgment based on all the facts, and judged charitably of their brethren, the charge of exalting the Confession over Scripture would be recognised for what it is -- a whisper from the Adversary.

 

[Scott1]

It is rare and infrequent that I come across anyone who knows what, e.g. What the Westminster Confession of Faith says, let alone can quote it, far less with the Scripture proofs.

It would be great to a few more people even acquainted with it so as to even have a potential battle of tendency to overuse it....


Often, the question is posed with a false underlying assumption:
1) the standards claim to be or are received as equal to Holy Scripture OR
2) it is morally superior for each person to believe individually, without reference to a system of biblical doctrine

But the reformed hermeneutic, rare enough in our day, is Scripture interprets Scripture.

The Westminster Standards are very helpful in doing that.
In that regard, they are the most careful and excellent summary ever composed.

Why would we want to devalue that?

Ignorance?

Sloth?

Disobedience?

Self Righteousness?

 

[Leslie]

It is rare and infrequent that I come across anyone who knows what, e.g. What the Westminster Confession of Faith says, let alone can quote it, far less with the Scripture proofs.

It would be great to a few more people even acquainted with it so as to even have a potential battle of tendency to overuse it....


Often, the question is posed with a false underlying assumption:
1) the standards claim to be or are received as equal to Holy Scripture OR
2) it is morally superior for each person to believe individually, without reference to a system of biblical doctrine

But the reformed hermeneutic, rare enough in our day, is Scripture interprets Scripture.

The Westminster Standards are very helpful in doing that.
In that regard, they are the most careful and excellent summary ever composed.

Why would we want to devalue that?

Ignorance?

Sloth?

Disobedience?

Self Righteousness?

It is much more troublesome, as pointed out, to use the scriptures, quoted and exegeted in context, than to bypass them by referring to the secondary standards. Using the standards is the easy way out. However, by impication putting the standards on the same level of authority as the scriptures is an insult to God. It's saying that our systemization is superior to His (largely) narrative presentation of the truth about Himself.

 

[Scott1]

It is much more troublesome, as pointed out, to use the scriptures, quoted and exegeted in context, than to bypass them by referring to the secondary standards. Using the standards is the easy way out. However, by impication putting the standards on the same level of authority as the scriptures is an insult to God. It's saying that our systemization is superior to His (largely) narrative presentation of the truth about Himself.

Leslie, what denomination do you assert places the Standards "on the same level of authority as the scriptures?" let alone, "superior" to them?


"The standards," e.g. The Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms) are received as summaries of the biblical doctrine to which they speak. That's not "bypass" of Scripture, it points to them.

The Westminster Standards have every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in them footnoted by Scripture proofs.

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) makes clear from the start the Standards are subject to and suboordinate to Scripture.

PCA
PREFACE TO THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER

[emphasis added]

....

III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline a nd the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church.

By the way, saying that

our systemization is superior to His (largely) narrative presentation of the truth about Himself.

is not really accurate. Scripture is built on understandable, systematized truth (we call that the doctrine of "perspecuity," the Bible as a whole speaks coherently, and can be understood, as a whole as well as in part). There is also much propositional truth, and "wisdom literature" in Scripture.

For a helpful hermeneutic as to how Scripture is basically to be understood, Dr. Sproul's article may be helpful, i.e.,:

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/knowing-scripture/

....Sometimes systematic theology is rejected because it is seen as an unwarranted imposition of a philosophical system on the Scriptures. It is seen as a preconceived system, a Procrustean bed into which the Scriptures must be forced by hacking off limbs and appendages to make it fit. However, the appropriate approach to systematic theology recognizes that the Bible itself contains a system of truth, and it is the task of the theologian not to impose a system upon the Bible, but to build a theology by understanding the system that the Bible teaches.

 

[Rom]

I think Rev. Winzer has accurately stated the case well. The proof - the brethren in this thread that are seeing fault in using the Confessions so much, have yet to offer a scripture proof in support of their line of argumentation.

Here, I'll throw in a chapter of the Confession with Scripture Proofs to cover my bases.

Chapter I.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. (2 Tim. 3:15–17, Gal. 1:8–9, 2 Thess. 2:2) 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: (John 6:45, 1 Cor 2:9–12) 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. (1 Cor. 11:13–14, 1 Cor. 14:26, 40)

 

[lynnie]

I see confessions as an excellent Systematic Theology. Perhaps the best. When you think of discipleship for new believers, it helps to approach the bible the way a confession does. Deity, Trinity, Sovereignty, etc, with all the proof texts. But I don't think we should regard it as more than a tremendous Systematic Theology book.

The one thing that bothers me here sometimes is when a confession (for example elect infants vs non elect) disagrees with Hodge and Warfield (all babies go to heaven) and people are not even willing to consider Warfield. I am not saying he is right, but sometimes people do treat the Confession as inerrant. Or if Calvin is different from a confession on something, shouldn't we at least consider Calvin as possibly correct?

I would be very very slow to brush off a confession. But on the other hand, there are great theologians of the past like Warfield who take an exception here and there and I don't think we should brush them off as if the confession is scripture.

Leslie- one of my husband's profs at Westminster Seminary carefully and almost grudgingly admitted to a class that there could be new canon before the Lord comes back with the two witnesses. I forget who it was.

 

[lynnie]

One other minor comment-

One thing that really bothered me in the PCA was certain people who did consider themself confessional but in modern controversy they were modern. By that I mean the role of women in the home ( or I should say not in the home with their babies and toddlers when they did not need the money) , and evolution, and modern psychological views of man (although this was not too bad compared to charismatics I know). Also, you can read 500 years of theology and every single reformed theologian up until modern times believed in headcoverings, and suddenly now they were just a cultural Corinthian thing. And acceptable movies and TV shows, well, I won't go there but I wonder how Rutherford and his buddies would regard what we indulge in. And prayer so minimized in churches today?

You can be confessional and yet be very modern and worldly in some ways that I think would be rejected if the confession was written today. So I see the confession as sort of deficient these days- which drives us back to scripture!

 

[Leslie]

Lynnie, if you can find that prof's name, I'd love to know who it is, will read some of what he writes.

There are other passages in Revelation that may involve new canon, but the witnesses are explicit. The problem with tradition is that with time conclusions without a totally solid scriptural basis become fossilized and enshrined as sacred. They can no longer be questioned. The scriptures can't be looked at freshly, with the question, "Is this truly what was taught?" In the past, the Lord in His sovereignty was prone to pull providential surprises. Example: Jesus coming from Nazareth when everyone expected him to be from Bethlehem. It was the systemized traditions of the Jews that led to many of them missing their own Messiah. The scriptures stated born in Bethlehem; growing up was not necessarily in Bethlehem.

Lest there be misunderstanding, I heartily affirm a closed canon at the present time. But it is tradition, not scripture. Hence I hold to it a wee bit looser than the deity of Jesus.

 

[Scott1]

One other minor comment-

One thing that really bothered me in the PCA was certain people who did consider themself confessional but in modern controversy they were modern. By that I mean the role of women in the home ( or I should say not in the home with their babies and toddlers when they did not need the money) , and evolution, and modern psychological views of man (although this was not too bad compared to charismatics I know). Also, you can read 500 years of theology and every single reformed theologian up until modern times believed in headcoverings, and suddenly now they were just a cultural Corinthian thing. And acceptable movies and TV shows, well, I won't go there but I wonder how Rutherford and his buddies would regard what we indulge in. And prayer so minimized in churches today?

You can be confessional and yet be very modern and worldly in some ways that I think would be rejected if the confession was written today. So I see the confession as sort of deficient these days- which drives us back to scripture!

Post #24 is well stated.
Only to add for those following, so it does not confuse,

The historic Confessions of Faith (London Baptist, Westminster, Three Forms of Unity, Second Helvetic) do not state positions or the detailed specifics that would be necessary on, e.g., headcoverings for women.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, does have lots to say about the foul language, filthy and violent content of modern media, e.g. exposition of the third, seventh and ninth commandments. (As well as the wasting of one's life following it).

Likewise, the Confession implicitly rebukes modern unbelief disguised as evolution, and "modern psychological views" of man, and the "Arminianism" that often lies at their root.

Someone may think themselves "Confessional" but not even be broadly familiar with it. (Anecdotal, this is very common).
How could it even be possible for a modern pentecostal/charismatic to not believe sola scriptura, not know what it means, and pursue seeking extra-biblical special revelation as an ordinary means of grace and claim to be Confessional?

And, of course, none of us perfectly keep their doctrinal precepts,
thank God for His grace and mercy!

 

[au5t1n]

Supposing someone did elevate the confessions above Scripture, wouldn't this make him "not confessional enough" rather than "too confessional"?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

Scripture principally teaches what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man -- FAITH and LIFE. The Confession makes explicit what a church believes that FAITH and LIFE to be. Those who object to a Confession are generally objecting to the FAITH and LIFE which the Confession sets forth as the teaching of Scripture. They are denying that FAITH and LIFE to be true of Scripture. What they put in the place of that FAITH and LIFE is their own interpretation of what Scripture teaches relative to FAITH and LIFE, and this functions as their own Confession. They are not doing away with the Confessional process, but simply placing their own Confession in competition with the one they are refusing.

Furthermore, when they reject the Confessional process, and pretend that they are being more "Scriptural" by not having a Confession, they effectively make themselves something more than an interpreter of Scripture. They have gone beyond the right of private judgment and have claimed the authority of Scripture itself for their beliefs. Because they have set themselves up above that subordinate and mediate place which the Confession occupies, they assume a supreme and immediate relationship with Scripture which makes their teaching the voice of the Holy Spirit Himself.

Finally, when individuals claim to be "Scriptural" in a sense which disallows the possibility of a confession subordinate to Scripture, they (1) deny to the church the authority to declare its mind as to what the Scriptures teach, and (2) take away from individuals the right to prove all things, to hold fast that which is good, and to abstain from all appearance of evil. So, by denying the proper function of Confessions to explicitly and subordinately interpret what Scripture teaches, the individual or the "church" sets their own implicit authority in a place of supremacy over others.

The Confessional approach is taught in Scripture in plain terms. 2 Corinthians 4:2 states, "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God." The Confession manifests the truth in a way that others can plainly judge it for themselves; it does not hide the truth under a blanket of implicit authority whereby the truth can be turned into whatever suits the individual. Furthermore, Scripture testifies to the function of the ministry to teach the truth in a form of words which can be learned, taught to others, and entrusted to others to teach it. 2 Timothy 1:13 states, "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." 2:2 continues, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

 

[timmopussycat]

Let me first say that I think there is great benefit and usefulness to having church confessions and I am not one of those anti-confessional types. What I find somewhat concerning is that as Protestants we rebuke Roman Catholic dogma which views church traditional writings on the same level of authority as Scripture and yet it seems many times when someone ask a doctrinal question on this forum it seems prominently the answer is what a particular confession states rather than referring to what Scripture states. Now I know that none of those on this board would say that confessions are on par with or inspired like Scripture but should we not be quicker to point to Scripture than sections of confessions (which do have a place but under Scripture). Thoughts?

I believe the answer to your question is both yes and no. Let me explain.

Assume first that by confessional believer I mean someone who truly believes that his or her subscribed confession truly summarizes Scriptural teaching at all points covered. In many cases that believer be right to begin with that confession as, for example, in the situation Rev. Greco has pointed out. And there are also many other legitimate uses of the confessions that benefit individual believers, families and churches. No confessional believer can be too confessional in these situations.

But there may occur times when a confession is used inappropriately: for example, citing a confessional statement rather than a Scriptural statement in discussions with believers who either do not accept the same confession in toto, or else do not accept that it is correct on a particular detail. And this does occur, the latter more frequently than the former.

In such situations, even though the confessional statement may be true to Scripture's teaching, the failure even attempt to express Scriptural truth via accurately exegeses of Scriptural statements alone is a logical error and it should be avoided. For when the supreme authority is Scripture, and the confessions are being compared against it, which is what our friends are doing in such discussions, citing the confessions as authoritative is illegitimate argumentation, because such citation presupposes confessional fidelity to Scripture without first proving their fidelity to Scripture on the point at issue. Which is an example of the logical error of begging the question.




For His Glory-
Matthew[/QUOTE]