Do you view your respective confession as functionally infallible?

[tellville]

I was wondering how many here view their respective confession as functionally infallible? I realize no one here would believe that their confession is actually infallible, but it seems to me most people treat the confession as such anyway.

I was just taking a nap and this question popped in my head. No issue really caused it, just plain serendipitous curiosity.

Multiple choices are allowed. Also, stating your reasons why if you're a "no" would be interesting.

 

[Josiah]

I dont suppose that i could still be a ninja if i voted yes

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No.

I think it's probably a misnomer to assume that quoting a Confession and having confidence in its Biblical summary is equivalent to viewing it as infallible. Let me give an illustration.

Assume two men read John 3:16 and John 6.

The first man says: "See! God loves the world. The Scriptures don't lie. This means that every single person has an opportunity to believe the Gospel. Dave Hunt used this Scripture convincingly to demonstrate that James White is all wet!"

The second man replies: "I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit,2 out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;3 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,4 taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;5 renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,6 and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:7 yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.8"

The question for you is this:

Whose interpretation was infallible?

 

[Matthias]

I was wondering how many here view their respective confession as functionally infallible? I realize no one here would believe that their confession is actually infallible, but it seems to me most people treat the confession as such anyway.

I was just taking a nap and this question popped in my head. No issue really caused it, just plain serendipitous curiosity.

Multiple choices are allowed. Also, stating your reasons why if you're a "no" would be interesting.

I have been over the 1689 confession, and over it, and over it and over it. I have not found a point that I personally do not agree with. It is not "inspired" so of course there is that possibility, but I find it to be written beautifully and scripturally.

 

[MW]

Infallible means cannot err. Any human writing can err. A better word would be inerrant, which means it does not err. Some clarification would need to be made as to what does not err -- the propositions in and of themselves, or the way in which the propositions have been stated. I don't think there is anyone who could subscribe a confession believing the propositions have been stated perfectly. But as to the propositions themselves, it is a contradiction to suggest a person can confess to believe something to be true whilst believing it errs.

 

[RamistThomist]

I voted unsure but quiet. That's not accurate, though. I think I might even disagree at parts, in fact I probably do. But it is not something I want to cause trouble about.

 

[Calvibaptist]

I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.

 

[MW]

I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

Exactly. So the "No Creed but Christ" crowd proudly disdain those that believe a "man-made Confession" but then have inerrant confidence in their own opinions about what the Scriptures teach!

 

[MW]

Exactly. So the "No Creed but Christ" crowd proudly disdain those that believe a "man-made Confession" but then have inerrant confidence in their own opinions about what the Scriptures teach!

Well noted, Rich. We often hear that human documents cannot be propositionally inerrant. The problem being, that such a proposition claims to be without error. So we end up with the contradiction of a man claiming to make an inerrant proposition that men cannot make inerrant propositions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Good to see you posting again Reverend Mat. I look for your posts. You must be studying. I have not seen you around much.

Concerning the part about the Pope being the Anti-Christ. I have some questions here. Which Pope? And what about other Anti-christs. Isn't Islam Anti-Christ also? I do believe they are anti-Christs but to single one out is a bit presumptuous.

 

[Vytautas]

I disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 of Providence Section 3which says God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. I don't think God works without means in his ordinary providence, because that would be unordinary providence. God ordinary uses means to accomplish his ends.

 

[Calvibaptist]

I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.

I think you're missing the point.

Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?

A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.

 

[Davidius]

Infallible means cannot err. Any human writing can err. A better word would be inerrant, which means it does not err. Some clarification would need to be made as to what does not err -- the propositions in and of themselves, or the way in which the propositions have been stated. I don't think there is anyone who could subscribe a confession believing the propositions have been stated perfectly. But as to the propositions themselves, it is a contradiction to suggest a person can confess to believe something to be true whilst believing it errs.

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.

I think you're missing the point.

Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?

A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.

Good point. It is possible for a human/uninspired document to be inerrant, but never can one be infallible.

 

[Calvibaptist]

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.

I think you're missing the point.

Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?

A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.

If, by inerrant, you just mean "true," then I have no problem with it. But the word "inerrant" is dripping with theological meaning that is usually reserved for the Scripture alone. I believe the Confession is true. The problem with using the word "inerrant" is that, for most people, that puts it on the same level as Scripture. You and everyone else on this board are not saying that, but most people who know a little about Christianity would interpret it that way.

BTW, inerrant mean "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error! Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.

 

[bookslover]

One of the options should be "No, because terms such as 'infallible' and/or 'inerrant' should be reserved for the Bible alone." One honors the Scriptures when he automatically assumes that all confessions of faith and catechisms are, in principle, fallible and errant. The Westminster divines certainly took this view (Confession 1.10).

 

[MW]

Good to see you posting again Reverend Mat. I look for your posts. You must be studying. I have not seen you around much.

Concerning the part about the Pope being the Anti-Christ. I have some questions here. Which Pope? And what about other Anti-christs. Isn't Islam Anti-Christ also? I do believe they are anti-Christs but to single one out is a bit presumptuous.

Sorry I've not been around much. Physical infirmity has meant I haven't been able to use the computer as much as normal. Which has been good, because I've caught up on some heavy duty reading.

This is a little off topic, but the Holy Spirit speaks of many antichrists as well as the antichrist. I think the Confession is quite right to do so. But as I've had cause to say before, chapter 25 of the Confession is dealing with ecclesiology not eschatology. Propositionally therefore the statement about the antichrist only requires us to affirm (1.) that Christ alone is the head of the church, (2.) that the antichrist falsely assumes that headship, and (3.) the Pope, in falsely assuming that headship, acts as the antichrist. It's worth pointing out that because the confessional statement interprets the apostle's language as referring to a system rather than an individual man, it leaves open the possibility of a future development of the antichristian system of Papal Rome.

 

[MW]

I disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 of Providence Section 3which says God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. I don't think God works without means in his ordinary providence, because that would be unordinary providence. God ordinary uses means to accomplish his ends.

So where is the disagreement? It sounds to me like you have simply clarified the proper meaning of the Confession rather than corrected it.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

Good to see you posting again Reverend Mat. I look for your posts. You must be studying. I have not seen you around much.

Matthew!

 

[MW]

BTW, inerrant mean "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error! Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.

Again, we need to distinguish between the proposition and the way it is stated. According to orthodox reformed thought, the translations of Scripture made by men of the reformed profession have not been foung to err with regard to the sense of Scripture, even though there may be better ways of rendering words and phrases. William Lyford provides the standard position: "in respect of words and manner of speech, a translation may be defective, when it is not erroneous as to the sense" (Instructed Christian, p. 72). The same applies to one's confession of faith.

 

[DMcFadden]

BTW, inerrant mean "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error! Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.

If I score a 100% on a test it will be "inerrant." However, no matter how many 100% I rack up, nobody would ever accuse me of being "infallible."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One of the options should be "No, because terms such as 'infallible' and/or 'inerrant' should be reserved for the Bible alone." One honors the Scriptures when he automatically assumes that all confessions of faith and catechisms are, in principle, fallible and errant. The Westminster divines certainly took this view (Confession 1.10).

Thus, on the basis of your own criteria, I can state unequivocally that what you just wrote is not true.

 

[Bygracealone]

I disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 of Providence Section 3which says God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. I don't think God works without means in his ordinary providence, because that would be unordinary providence. God ordinary uses means to accomplish his ends.

So where is the disagreement? It sounds to me like you have simply clarified the proper meaning of the Confession rather than corrected it.

Exactly. That's what the confession says.

 

[Herald]

I have a problem with the word infallible in conjunction with any work of man. If you had an option that simply said, "No" I would have selected that one.

Of course I also ask: before answering questions of this type.

 

[kvanlaan]

And after asking I would ask this: do we have any Calvinist ninjas on the board in order to dispatch the Arminian spies? If so, where was this option?

 

[Amazing Grace]

I voted no, and I am Vocal about one question in particular in the Heidelberg

Q & A 7

Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature
come from?

A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
Adam and Eve, in Paradise.^1
This fall has so poisoned our nature^2
that we are born sinners—
corrupt from conception on.^3


I do not agree that Eve's name should be in there. It is specifically mentioned by Paul that sin entered through one man, that is Adam.

 

[JohnOwen007]

[...] The "No Creed but Christ" people [...]

[1] This is a creed because the exact words are not found in Scripture.

[2] Which Christ? The Islamic, Arian, Ebionite, Lutheran, or Reformed ...

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

Exactly. So the "No Creed but Christ" crowd proudly disdain those that believe a "man-made Confession" but then have inerrant confidence in their own opinions about what the Scriptures teach!

While I am not 100% sure about everything in the Westminster Standards, those who want to reject creeds altogether are, in my experience, people who are filled with pride and are totally unteachable.

Indeed, the whole idea of "no creed but Christ" is a contradiction, as "no creed but Christ" is a creed, as they are affirming a belief in something i.e. they are claiming to believe in Christ. If its alright for them to do that, then why can't the rest of Christendom state what they believe concerning Christ, His person and work, His church, His salvation, His relation to the other persons of the God-head, His return, His worship, His kingship over church, family and state, His sacraments etc, etc.

However, from my encounters with this sort of person in the past, their zeal against creeds is nothing more than an assertion of their own infallibility. While they are perfectly entitled to examine the creeds and confessions of the church in the light of Scripture (Acts 17:11) - and suggest improvements where they believe necessary - the whole idea of a creedless Christianity is nothing but an excuse for ultra-individualism and contempt for the authority of those whom Christ has placed over them in the church.

Well, that's my rant over for now.

 

[JBaldwin]

I voted, no, There are some things I am unsure about, but I am quiet about it. That is not entirely true, I would rather say, that as far as I can tell with my study of Scripture so far, I agree with it, but there are a few points about which I would like to study further.

I would also agree with others who say that there is no confessional that is going to be completely inerrant or infallible. God's Word is the only document we have that can claim those things. I hold to the Westminster Confession because it most closely states what I believe, and it is the confessional that my church holds.