The Authority of Scripture

[paranymph]

Have stood the test of time, but are by no means infallible.

As far as someone arguing with you interpretation brother, that language really scares me for the following reason:

I live in San Antonio, TX which has a very high catholic population because of the many folks coming up across the border over the generations.

I go door to door on Sunday afternoons with another brother. One of these afternoons I entered into conversation with a well educated Catholic. As usual with those holding to the Catholic heresies, his issue was one of authority. Several times he stated that he didn't really want to argue from the scriptures because it would be a matter of our conflicting interpretations. So he used the church fathers.

Brother, I don't think we can ever fall back on the different interpretations argument. The scriptures where written for us to understand by the power of the spirit, and if a brother is truly open, we should be able to dialog and reach a conclusion in most cases.

Remember, the Puritan confessions were written to reform the church from Papal corruptions. I think they are very careful to avoid such.

1) RCC claims their interpretation is infallible and that the tradition of the church is equal to the Bible. Nobody claims the Confessions are equal to the Word of God. The Confessions themselves say that Scripture is the Supreme Judge. Of course, we always want to go back to Scripture. I'm just saying the Confessions are a great aid in interpreting Scripture.

2) We are comparing interpretations. "You" (or whoever) has a Confession, a system of beliefs through which you interpret Scripture, whether you recognize it or not, whether on paper or not. Why do people have such confidence that their private interpretation is equally as solid as one that has been passed down through the ages in the church and has stood the test of time up to our day? All I am saying with a Confession is, "Hey, here are some Scriptures to prove my point. Here's how I interpret them, and I have a great cloud of witnesses that also interprets them this way. You should strongly consider the work they've put into their interpretations!"

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Remember, the Puritan confessions were written to reform the church from Papal corruptions. I think they are very careful to avoid such.

1) RCC claims their interpretation is infallible and that the tradition of the church is equal to the Bible. Nobody claims the Confessions are equal to the Word of God. The Confessions themselves say that Scripture is the Supreme Judge. Of course, we always want to go back to Scripture. I'm just saying the Confessions are a great aid in interpreting Scripture.

2) We are comparing interpretations. "You" (or whoever) has a Confession, a system of beliefs through which you interpret Scripture, whether you recognize it or not, whether on paper or not. Why do people have such confidence that their private interpretation is equally as solid as one that has been passed down through the ages in the church and has stood the test of time up to our day? All I am saying with a Confession is, "Hey, here are some Scriptures to prove my point. Here's how I interpret them, and I have a great cloud of witnesses that also interprets them this way. You should strongly consider the work they've put into their interpretations!"

Brother, you put way too much weight in traditions passed down through the ages. I love the 1689 LBC, it expresses so many beautiful truths so concisely, but we must read and interpret the scriptures for ourselves. And must weigh what is said by our own interpretation. Why do you think Paul commended the Bereans? He commended them because the weighed his words with the scriptures.

True believers can accurately interpret the scriptures (particularly the fundamentals) accurately by the power of the Holy spirit, who as our LORD says, came to teach us truth.

 

[Ploutos]

True believers can accurately interpret the scriptures (particularly the fundamentals) accurately by the power of the Holy spirit, who as our LORD says, came to teach us truth.

Sure, but they don't do so in isolation from other believers.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Thus far I have found this thread helpful brethren. It has helped me understand the nuances of where people are at, and sister @Jeri Tanner had a thought provoking thing to say.

I am VERY concerned with a few statements made here. But I am encouraged that some of you have spoken in a more balanced fashion. Thank you brethren! Feel free to continue, I just feel at this point a little recap would be good:

To my understanding, the confessions are a good thing. The problem can lie in how we use them.

The primary problem I address is the use of confessions to prove points (even among ourselves). Holding the confession up as a standard of truth.

Sure, but they don't do so in isolation from other believers.

Amen! I don't think I have said that anywhere. I think confessions are a good think properly used.

 

[JP Wallace]

True believers can accurately interpret the scriptures (particularly the fundamentals) accurately by the power of the Holy spirit, who as our LORD says, came to teach us truth.

But I'm sure you would also agree with the following:

1) many true believers interpret the Bible in many places completely wrongly....would you suggest that they are not true believers?

2) The fact is that there are many different interpretations within the church, on baptism, millennial views, church order, sovereignty of God etc. etc.

Your argument alone does not really move us forward much, because while I agree that confessions being secondary should be kept secondary and I also think your idea of leaning on ones interpretation is unworkable.

 

[MW]

It is not the Scriptures on their own, but the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, that is the ultimate Judge. It is not naked Scripture as a letter, but the content of Scripture as a rule, that we must appeal to. Holy Scripture itself bears witness to faithful sayings worthy of all acceptation and to a form of sound words that we are to hold fast. As we are to give an answer to everyone who asks us, speak as the oracles of God, test the spirits, and reject heretics, the system of truth which we hold is of necessity beyond the letter of Scripture itself.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

many true believers interpret the Bible in many places completely wrongly....would you suggest that they are not true believers?

It would certainly depend on who they where, but in many cases I would say they where true believers who isolated themselves from other beleivers intentional fellowship, so that they had no other brethren to balance them.

2) The fact is that there are many different interpretations within the church, on baptism, millennial views, church order, sovereignty of God etc. etc.

Totally agree. But these are not fundamental.

Your argument alone does not really move us forward much, because while I agree that confessions being secondary should be kept secondary and I also think your idea of leaning on ones interpretation is unworkable.

If brethren are willing to discuss the scriptures openly, then we can come to an accurate conclusion. The scriptures where provided by the LORD for us to understand, not to be something other people have to interpret for us.

It is not the Scriptures on their own, but the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, that is the ultimate Judge. It is not naked Scripture as a letter, but the content of Scripture as a rule, that we must appeal to. Holy Scripture itself bears witness to faithful sayings worthy of all acceptation and to a form of sound words that we are to hold fast. As we are to give an answer to everyone who asks us, speak as the oracles of God, test the spirits, and reject heretics, the system of truth which we hold is of necessity beyond the letter of Scripture itself.

Totally agreed with that.

 

[JP Wallace]

Benjamin

It would certainly depend on who they where, but in many cases I would say they where true believers who isolated themselves from other beleivers intentional fellowship, so that they had no other brethren to balance them.

Is not a confession merely a time-tested united fellowshipping document - it in one sense does what you say - it provides us with balance.

With respect you are now changing your argument, you wrote this in the last post,

Totally agree. But these are not fundamental.

But in an earlier post you wrote this,

True believers can accurately interpret the scriptures (particularly the fundamentals) accurately by the power of the Holy spirit, who as our LORD says, came to teach us truth.

Which is your position - is it that true believers can accurtately by the power of the Holy Spirit interpret the Scriptures or is it that true believers can accurately only (or especially) interpret the fundamentals?

It makes a difference.

If brethren are willing to discuss the scriptures openly, then we can come to an accurate conclusion.

I love your optimism, but you forget the noetic effect of sin on mankind's mind - that prevents us even as regenerate Christians to be as correct in our interpretations as we ought to be. You also seem to forget the remaining sin of pride, arrogance, stubborness and a host of other things that thus far has prevented the church over hundreds of years coming to agreement on some matters.

Note I am not addressing your points on the confession as such, but what seems to be some loose thinking on your part in relation to man's abilities, even regenerate man's abilities.

Can I ask if you have ever read a book or set of articles on symbolics, the use of the confessions etc....because it seems to me that you are arguing against a straw man to some extent.

Have you ever done a detailed study on the following texts? What does Paul mean by these phrases? What is their significance to this argument. Why doesn't he just say stick to the Bible after all he was happy to commend the Scriptures to Timothy as being able to thoroughly equip us....and yet he seems to be saying something more (not adding something more in these texts.

2 Timothy 1:13 ESV “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6 ESV “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”

And in relation to those texts Paul does not say 'live by your own interpretation' rather he says for you life on an agreed standard of living (i.e. a biblically formed by agreed standard).

He does not say, ignore what the brethren before you have come to agreement on.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Which is your position - is it that true believers can accurtately by the power of the Holy Spirit interpret the Scriptures or is it that true believers can accurately only (or especially) interpret the fundamentals?

The first. But the Spirit uses means. Namely, the balance of brethren.

Can I ask if you have ever read a book or set of articles on symbolics, the use of the confessions etc....because it seems to me that you are arguing against a straw man to some extent.

I have read the whole 1689 LBC once. And snippets of several others.

Have you ever done a detailed study on the following texts? What does Paul mean by these phrases? What is their significance to this argument. Why doesn't he just say stick to the Bible after all he was happy to commend the Scriptures to Timothy as being able to thoroughly equip us....and yet he seems to be saying something more (not adding something more in these texts.

2 Timothy 1:13 ESV “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6 ESV “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”

Yes brother, I have studied these. To my understanding they are specifically speaking of Apostolic teaching, and do not apply to confessions.

Also again, it is disturbing, the Catholic guy I spoke with quoted these to back up the validity of the quotes from Church fathers he was using to prove heresy.

My position in a nutshell is, confessions have the same advantage that a book by Spurgeon does, as beautiful and helpful expressions of truth. But they are being soinfully and dangerously used when we start to use them to prove what we say is the truth.

 

[JP Wallace]

Okay then Benjamin I'll take the bait

The first. But the Spirit uses means. Namely, the balance of brethren.

Prove that from Scripture (i.e. that it's the first and not the second.

I have read the whole 1689 LBC once. And snippets of several others.

I didn't ask if you had read the confession, but books or articles about confessions - because I don;t think you have the right end of the stick in relation to how they operate within reformed churches.

Yes brother, I have studied these. To my understanding they are specifically speaking of Apostolic teaching, and do not apply to confessions.

Prove your understanding of those verses from Scripture please. Or do you just want me to accept your interpretation? After all Scripture is your only standard, not really your own opinion, right? I won't be offering my interpretation until you give a detailed, consistent, scriptural, explanation of how you come to the conclusion that this is applicable only to Apostolic teaching and not confessions, and what "form" you think apostolic teaching came in.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Prove that from Scripture (i.e. that it's the first and not the second.

Prove your understanding of those verses from Scripture please. Or do you just want me to accept your interpretation? After all Scripture is your only standard, not really your own opinion, right?

Certainly brother! This is very good! I certainly don't want you to arbitrarily accept my interpretation. If it is inaccurate, I want to be told.

Let me launch in here with the first:

The Second Rather Then The First

"These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:25-26

You see the LORD doesn't put a limit. All things. Not just fundamentals.

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." John 16:13

We have the same thing here.

Interpretations of Passages Regarding Traditions

"Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 1:13

Timothy was to follow the pattern of sound word had heard specifically from Paul.

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

These are traditions that have already been taught by "us" (to my understanding the apostles). Not confessions written hundreds of years later.

"Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6

Very much the same thing.

What are your thoughts?

Okay then Benjamin I'll take the bait

In addition, I was not trying to bait you. But all the same, I'm very glad we've moved to the scriptures.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

I didn't ask if you had read the confession, but books or articles about confessions - because I don;t think you have the right end of the stick in relation to how they operate within reformed churches.

True! No, I have not.

and what "form" you think apostolic teaching came in.

Also, I missed this. It says written and spoken.

 

[JP Wallace]

Sorry Benjamin. You have not dealt with the texts at all - you have applied your own interpetation to them. You have not exegeted the critical words in the texts. You have not cross-referenced them to other Scriptures - for by the analogy of Scripture we understand the truth.

You are breaking your own principle in other words. Scripture it appears in not your authority. Your interpretation of it is. Wanting a text to mean something does not make it mean something. Thinking it means something does not make it mean that. It means what it means in context, in the light of the whole overall message of Scripture according to the actual meaning of the words.

It would take me perhaps 2 weeks to get to a point to explain my position from those texts. And far too much typing on here than I have time for. So I'm bowing out.

Keep thinking about these issues carefully. Do the hard work of studying good works on how confessions work. And by the way I actually sympathise with your question.

All too often people quote confessions and not texts. But far more often I see and hear people quoting their own often very ignorant opinions.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Sorry Benjamin. You have not dealt with the texts at all - you have applied your own interpetation to them. You have not exegeted the critical words in the texts. You have not cross-referenced them to other Scriptures - for by the analogy of Scripture we understand the truth.

You are breaking your own principle in other words. Scripture it appears in not your authority. Your interpretation of it is. Wanting a text to mean something does not make it mean something. Thinking it means something does not make it mean that. It means what it means in context, in the light of the whole overall message of Scripture according to the actual meaning of the words.

It would take me perhaps 2 weeks to get to a point to explain my position from those texts. And far too much typing on here than I have time for. So I'm bowing out.

Keep thinking about these issues carefully. Do the hard work of studying good works on how confessions work. And by the way I actually sympathise with your question.

All too often people quote confessions and not texts. But far more often I see and hear people quoting their own often very ignorant opinions.

Brother, I am grieved! You tell me I do not interpret correctly, and you give for your reasons no cross references? And exegeting the critical words (which I did do simply, since exegete simply means interpret).

Brother, I really don't get what I did wrong. I gave you the plain interpretations of the texts. They're pretty strait forward.

I feel rather confused as to my mistake.

 

[JP Wallace]

Benjamin

Respectfully

You didn't explain or attempt to explain what the word "traditions" means in the context of this verse, nevermind in the context of Scripture or "pattern", or , or even "words", or what about "sound"? You referenced some other words in the text but not the most important ones for the subject addressed here. Until you have wrestled with those - and it's not a five minute job - you cannot really interact on the subject of confessions.

I hope I don't come across as nasty or snarky - that's not my intention.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Benjamin

Respectfully

You didn't explain or attempt to explain what the word "traditions" means in the context of this verse, nevermind in the context of Scripture or "pattern", or , or even "words", or what about "sound"? You referenced some other words in the text but not the most important ones for the subject addressed here. Until you have wrestled with those - and it's not a five minute job - you cannot really interact on the subject of confessions.

I hope I don't come across as nasty or snarky - that's not my intention.

Brother, I don't need to pick apart every word to prove that a passage is saying something different from what you say it is. All three passages refer to patterns or traditions in the past tense. It's that simple.

There are times to spend hours getting complex, but it's not always necessary. Of course if you bring up further objections, I will delve into those. But I can't create arguments in a vacuum.

I hope I don't come across as nasty or snarky - that's not my intention.

That is good to know brother. I thought you might be for a moment. But no hard feelings.

 

[JP Wallace]

Respectfully again - I haven't said what I think the passage means. I merely wanted you do the work to see whether it helped you answer your opening question in this thread or not. If you think you have done that sufficiently, well carry on.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Respectfully again - I haven't said what I think the passage means. I merely wanted you do the work to see whether it helped you answer your opening question in this thread or not. If you think you have done that sufficiently, well carry on.

Thank you brother. I have been well aware of those passages and have already formed an understanding of where they stand in relation to the uninspired Christian writings through out the centuries. Thank you for referencing them!
Of course, if you have some peice of the puzzle in the scriptures that you think I am missing, please reference it!

 

[alexanderjames]

Would it be helpful if you were to define by examples of the use of confessional statements to “prove” things?

I have personally never witnessed anyone use a confession to “prove” a doctrine in the strict sense of the word. Perhaps an example would help.

Is it that you reject the authority of the confessions entirely?

You must understand that we do submit to confessional standard. That is is part of the membership here for example, just like at your church they might expect you to submit to the authority of the Nicene Creed. We submit to it as an authority for our doctrine which is underneath the authority of the word of God. The word of God as revealed in the Scriptures trumps every confessional statement but obviously we believe here that the reformed confessions faithfully represent the teaching of the Scriptures, though we might take exceptions depending on our current personal convictions.

Stop me if I’m talking over your meaning with the thread.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Is it that you reject the authority of the confessions entirely?

Confession certainly do have authority, in as much as they align with scripture. I too wish I could provide you with examples but quite a few of the ones that are recent enough for me to find are here in PB, so I don't feel I have liberty to supply them.

Stop me if I’m talking over your meaning with the thread.

Yeah. Maybe I was unclear brother. The problem I see is that two brothers can be discussing something on which they disagree. And one send the other a quote from a confession. Then when the other brother asks to please be sent scripture, he is told how dangerous it is to depart from the time tested truth in the confession, when the real danger is to rely on the confession for our interpretation of scripture.

Confessions are good in the same way that the books of Spurgeon are good. As wise thoughts. But as soon as they start to have authority, where we use them instead of scripture to prove what we say, there is a big problem.

 

[alexanderjames]

Confessions are good in the same way that the books of Spurgeon are good. As wise thoughts. But as soon as they start to have authority, where we use them instead of scripture to prove what we say, there is a big problem.

Do you recognise that this view is not representative of what a confessional document actually is?

You’ll see in my comment we do recognise a certain level of authority that confessions carry.

You are free to adhere or not to adhere to whatever confessional statement outside the Scriptures. Strictly speaking, God puts no obligation upon you outside of His word. You are free in Christ.

But as a member here you are claiming to adhere to a particular confessional standard. In adhering, it is to say that you not only respect the wisdom of such confession(s) but you believe it to be a faithful representation of the teaching of the Scriptures. Therefore, when someone puts to you this confession which you claim to adhere to, it is expected that you will receive it.
Is that fair?

 

[paranymph]

Confession certainly do have authority, in as much as they align with scripture. I too wish I could provide you with examples but quite a few of the ones that are recent enough for me to find are here in PB, so I don't feel I have liberty to supply them.

Hello brother, I imagine you are thinking about me. If you want, you can use an example. In another thread we discussed whether an elder only should baptize. I quoted the Confession, Ch 28, and cited 1 Cor 4:1. You then disagreed that this is what 1 Cor 4:1 meant. Do you see what happened? I think that 1 Cor 4:1 applies, but you have a different interpretation. If you would like to exegete that verse to say why the confessions are wrong, you are welcome to do so. Personally, I was just quoting the Confession, again, to save me time. I have not the time nor willingness to write an essay on that verse. I do not believe that verse applies "just because the Confession says it." But, I take the history of interpretation very seriously when I seek to study a text. I start with the assumption that I am a numpty head and need help from the church throughout the ages. Upon studying that text, I found that the verse indeed does apply to the question of elders stewarding the sacraments. There are other verses that back up that interpretation, but, again, I just don't have time to get into it all.

I think the rub of the disagreement is that we on this Board hold to Confessions as subordinate standards, subordinate to the Word of God. In my church, I am required to teach according to the 2LBC or I get fired! I have willingly submitted to this because I believe the 2LBC accurately summarizes the truth of Scripture.

Then when the other brother asks to please be sent scripture, he is told how dangerous it is to depart from the time tested truth in the confession, when the real danger is to rely on the confession for our interpretation of scripture.

I hope this is not referring to me. I referenced the biblical citations from the Confession.

P.S. We may just end up disagreeing on this. I find it an interesting discussion and hope God will give you insight. If you're interested in a book, Carl Trueman's Crisis of Confidence is all about this very topic.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Do you recognise that this view is not representative of what a confessional document actually is?

You’ll see in my comment we do recognise a certain level of authority that confessions carry.

You are free to adhere or not to adhere to whatever confessional statement outside the Scriptures. Strictly speaking, God puts no obligation upon you outside of His word. You are free in Christ.

But as a member here you are claiming to adhere to a particular confessional standard. In adhering, it is to say that you not only respect the wisdom of such confession(s) but you believe it to be a faithful representation of the teaching of the Scriptures. Therefore, when someone puts to you this confession which you claim to adhere to, it is expected that you will receive it.
Is that fair?

Brother. I do adhere to the 1689. My problem is with abuse of confessions. I have no problem with adhering to a confession.

"Therefore, when someone puts to you this confession which you claim to adhere to, it is expected that you will receive it.
Is that fair?"

Not really, because the reason my beliefs would be one way or the other would primarily depend on scripture. So if someone quotes a piece of the confession that contradicts scripture, I'll not adhere to that aspect of the confession.

Hello brother, I imagine you are thinking about me. If you want, you can use an example. In another thread we discussed whether an elder only should baptize. I quoted the Confession, Ch 28, and cited 1 Cor 4:1. You then disagreed that this is what 1 Cor 4:1 meant. Do you see what happened? I think that 1 Cor 4:1 applies, but you have a different interpretation. If you would like to exegete that verse to say why the confessions are wrong, you are welcome to do so. Personally, I was just quoting the Confession, again, to save me time. I have not the time nor willingness to write an essay on that verse. I do not believe that verse applies "just because the Confession says it." But, I take the history of interpretation very seriously when I seek to study a text. I start with the assumption that I am a numpty head and need help from the church throughout the ages. Upon studying that text, I found that the verse indeed does apply to the question of elders stewarding the sacraments. There are other verses that back up that interpretation, but, again, I just don't have time to get into it all.

I think the rub of the disagreement is that we on this Board hold to Confessions as subordinate standards, subordinate to the Word of God. In my church, I am required to teach according to the 2LBC or I get fired! I have willingly submitted to this because I believe the 2LBC accurately summarizes the truth of Scripture.


I hope this is not referring to me. I referenced the biblical citations from the Confession.

It's not referring to you brother. Some of it was, but not that. Thank you, you've been very kind!

 

[JP Wallace]

Benjamin

One point where I think I miss-stated and/or you misunderstood me.

I wrote the following:

I won't be offering my interpretation until you give a detailed, consistent, scriptural, explanation of how you come to the conclusion that this is applicable only to Apostolic teaching and not confessions, and what "form" you think apostolic teaching came in.

I think you took that to mean I was asking whether or not Paul was referring to the 1689 or WCF - the confession we have. Fair enough - but that was not my intention.

My intention was to ask you to think about what importance or impact Paul's mentioning of "patterns of sound words" and "traditions" was to the whole subject of confessions.

What I mean is I'm sure you don't think he just quoted Scripture? He was in fact explaining Scripture authoritatively with a particular set of words and definitions. He was not leaving them any room for personal interpretation at all. What does all that have to say to us about the place of confessions?

I'm writing that just to clarify - I don't want to engage in the back and forward. This is a big subject.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Benjamin

One point where I think I miss-stated and/or you misunderstood me.

I wrote the following:



I think you took that to mean I was asking whether or not Paul was referring to the 1689 or WCF - the confession we have. Fair enough - but that was not my intention.

My intention was to ask you to think about what importance or impact Paul's mentioning of "patterns of sound words" and "traditions" was to the whole subject of confessions.

What I mean is I'm sure you don't think he just quoted Scripture? He was in fact explaining Scripture authoritatively with a particular set of words and definitions. He was not leaving them any room for personal interpretation at all. What does all that have to say to us about the place of confessions?

I'm writing that just to clarify - I don't want to engage in the back and forward. This is a big subject.

Thank you brother! That helps me understand what you meant a lot! It makes much more sense now.

 

[MarrowMan]

Confession certainly do have authority, in as much as they align with scripture. I too wish I could provide you with examples but quite a few of the ones that are recent enough for me to find are here in PB, so I don't feel I have liberty to supply them.



Yeah. Maybe I was unclear brother. The problem I see is that two brothers can be discussing something on which they disagree. And one send the other a quote from a confession. Then when the other brother asks to please be sent scripture, he is told how dangerous it is to depart from the time tested truth in the confession, when the real danger is to rely on the confession for our interpretation of scripture.

Confessions are good in the same way that the books of Spurgeon are good. As wise thoughts. But as soon as they start to have authority, where we use them instead of scripture to prove what we say, there is a big problem.

Perhaps you would be well served in engaging in a DM conversation with the "examples" you've found here on the PB. That would allow you opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding or concern without violating your conscience with respect to your ability to bring them into public discourse on the boards.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Ben,

One way I use a confession is to determine how a person understands particular Scriptures. For instance, it is written,

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:3-4 KJV)​

​

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9 KJV)​

Different churches will use these Scriptures to support understanding and teaching that are erroneous. A confession may clarify what a person holds to. Of course, I will go to Scripture to prove my view, and disprove error. Scripture is THE authority, and by which a confession is shown to be faithful or unfaithful to the word of God rightly understood.

Here on PB, adherence to a confession that is Reformed is required, or, negatively, teaching / promoting that which is against the confessions held to here is forbidden. We keep this a Reformed forum (whether the 1689 is truly Reformed is often discussed here, as pertains to the Covenant of Grace). The Baptists and the Paedobaptists here are gracious and tolerant toward one another here.

Myself, holding to the Three Forms of Unity of the continental Reformed churches, I take an exception to Article 36 of the Belgic Confession as I do not believe Scripture warrants the civil magistrate to "remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship" in the church. The American revision of the Westminster Standards (over against the original) supports my stand, and so am allowed here to hold to that.

Our confessions are of extreme value in discerning and standing in the faith of the Scriptures rightly understood.

A question for you, Ben: Is there anything in the 1689 London Baptist Confession you do not agree with?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Hello brethren. This post flows from a growing concern I have had, the more I poked my nose out into the wider reformed circles. My concern would be that I often see brethren (I'm not specifically referring to the Puritan Board, you do better than some!) quoting confessions and creeds, outside the cannon, to give authority to what they say.

My concern would be that these are the uninspired writings of men (albeit wise men). And there authority only exists in as much as they align with scripture.

This seems to be headed in a similar grain (though as yet, not nearly as problematic) as the Catholic church. Using things outside of scripture as if they had authority to define truth.

Now, let me clarify, I think confessions and creeds are good when they are used rightly. As a helpful framework, but not as an authority to prove that framework.

So I would mostly be asking for kind thoughts in opposition, or agreement brethren. I would like to discuss this and hopefully get my thinking on this more rounded.

Post Script: This is the best forum I could find. If I missed one that would be a better fit, please say so and I can mention it to the staff.

Matthew Barrett, in his book, God's Word Alone, stated that creeds, confessions, articles of faith, &c., hold a ministerial position, whereas scripture holds a magisterial position.

 

[Alive in Christ]

It's one thing to say that the Bible is the ultimate authority, and quite another to say that the Bible is the only authority. Our traditions, unlike those of the Roman church, are not held by us to be equal to scripture, but are instead validated by scripture. So I see no real problem with quoting the confessions, provided it's done in the proper context. That all said, the only time I really ever see someone quoting a confession is when it's specifically regarding the distinctives of reformed theology. I guess that seeing as how the historic reformed confessions are accurate summations of what God's Word truly teaches, one could otherwise quote from one of them in contexts such as when admonishing or exhorting a brother in spiritual matters, though I don't really see the use in doing so when one could instead quote the source material directly.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

It's one thing to say that the Bible is the ultimate authority, and quite another to say that the Bible is the only authority. Our traditions, unlike those of the Roman church, are not held by us to be equal to scripture, but are instead validated by scripture. So I see no real problem with quoting the confessions, provided it's done in the proper context. That all said, the only time I really ever see someone quoting a confession is when it's specifically regarding the distinctives of reformed theology. I guess that seeing as how the historic reformed confessions are accurate summations of what God's Word truly teaches, one could otherwise quote from one of them in contexts such as when admonishing or exhorting a brother in spiritual matters, though I don't really see the use in doing so when one could instead quote the source material directly.

And sometimes through ignorance, their confessions, creeds, or AoF will contradict themselves. Here is an example:

ARTICLE 1. We believe in only one true and living God; the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost; and these three are one, equal in power, essence and glory.
ARTICLE 2. We believe the scripture of the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible are the written words of God and are the only rules of faith and practice.
ARTICLE 3. We believe in the doctrine of election by grace, for by grace are ye saved through faith.
ARTICLE 4. We believe in the doctrine of original sin and of man's inability to recover himself from the fallen state he is in by nature, therefore the Savior is needed for our redemption.
ARTICLE 5. We believe that sinners are called to repentance and believe in the Gospel and regeneration of the soul and sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, and none shall fall away and be lost.
ARTICLE 6. We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
ARTICLE 7. We believe that baptism is the ordinance of God's Church on earth and the mode IMMERSION, back foremost, so as to cover all over.
ARTICLE 8. We believe that the Lord's Supper is the command of the Savior, and that by use of bread and the fruit of the vine, and feet washing should be kept up until his second coming by his believers.
ARTICLE 9. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust, and that the joys of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked shall be eternal.
ARTICLE 10. We believe that no Minister has the right to administer the ordinances and commands of the Gospel except such as are regularly baptized by immersion of a legal administrator of the Gospel and ordained coming under the hands of a regularly chosen presbytery of the Church.
ARTICLE 11. We believe it to be the duty of all Church members to contribute for defraying all reasonable expenses of the Church, never forgetting the poor according to their several abilities.
ARTICLE 12. We believe that every doctrine that goes to encourageor indulge people in their sins or cause them to settle down on anything short of saving faith in Christ for salvation is erroneous, and such doctrine shall be rejected by us.
ARTICLE 13. We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is a congregation of faithful believers in Christ who have obtained fellowship with the Lord and one another and have given themselves to the Lord and have agreed to keep up a Godly discipline according to the rules of the Gospel.
ARTICLE 14. We believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and the government thereof is upon His Shoulders.
ARTICLE 15. We believe that a sanctioned marriage of God is between a man and a woman only. Also, we believe in receiving members into our fellowship that follow the natural dating relationship that leads to holy matrimony between a man and a woman only: thereby, preserving the family unit of father, mother and children. Ephesians 5:22,23 and 28, St. Mark 10:6,7,8 and Romans 1:26 and 27.
ARTICLE 16. None of the above Articles shall be considered as to hold with particular election and reprobation so as to make God partial, directly or indirectly, nor to injure any of the children of men, nor shall any of those Articles be altered without legal notice and free consent.