"Confessionalism is Protestants' Pope"

[nwink]

In light of the Stellman case recently of his departure for "Rome", I hear some people argue that Reformed people's confessionalism is like their "pope". They argue that Reformed people argue largely from the Confession such as in Leithart's trial, and thereby seem to imply that it's "infallible." What is the best way to address this fallacious line of thinking about the proper role of confessionalism in the church?

I mean, my thoughts are that it seems clear enough that the Confession is the doctrinal statement of Reformed denominations, so I'm confused why some people attack Reformed people over this issue since it's the denomination's stated beliefs!

(I DON'T want this to be a thread regarding Federal Vision or the trial issues so much as the proper role of confessionalism in the church)

 

[J. Dean]

That would only hold true to the degree that a Confession clashes with Scripture. And certainly a Confession is NOT a substitute for the Bible itself, nor is it to be considered equal to, or superior to, the Bible. I don't think there's anybody here who holds to such a foolish position.

That being said, a scriptural Confession is a good thing, an important suppliment to the Christian. If the Confession is not in opposition to Scripture, then it should be commended and read, and no harm can come of having it.

And the dirty little secret is that those who are "anti-confessional" have some sort of confession to which they hold, whether they admit to it or not.

Check out this clever little video that addresses this issue (the subject of the video is creeds, but it applies to confessions as well): TYLPTL: Learning that Creeds Are Bad (Episode 10) - YouTube

 

[au5t1n]

I'd recommend reading the Introductory Essay to Robert Shaw's exposition of the Westminster Confession. It gives a good explanation of what confessing means for the church and why it is necessary and inevitable. It's available online for free.

 

[earl40]

In light of the Stellman case recently of his departure for "Rome", I hear some people argue that Reformed people's confessionalism is like their "pope". They argue that Reformed people argue largely from the Confession such as in Leithart's trial, and thereby seem to imply that it's "infallible." What is the best way to address this fallacious line of thinking about the proper role of confessionalism in the church?

I mean, my thoughts are that it seems clear enough that the Confession is the doctrinal statement of Reformed denominations, so I'm confused why some people attack Reformed people over this issue since it's the denomination's stated beliefs!

(I DON'T want this to be a thread regarding Federal Vision or the trial issues so much as the proper role of confessionalism in the church)

Ask then if they like the creeds and see if they attack them with the same vigor.

 

[VictorBravo]

With regard to the Leithart trial, the issue was whether his teaching was in accord with the Confession he vowed to uphold. That is why there was argument from the Confession.

It's very basic: if a prosecutor is given the task to accuse someone of violationg the laws of jurisdiction, he obviously has to argue from the laws of the jurisdiction. He isn't even arguing whether the law is right or wrong at that point, just whether it has been violated.

In a case of confessional church discipline, the primary "law" to argue from is the Confession.

As for the accusation itself, I think comes across as juvenile as "your mother wears Army boots." In either case, the statement is either not true, or if it were true, it is not an insult.

 

[CharlieJ]

I think the thrust of the assertion is that a rigid form of confessionalism stunts the natural progress of doctrine. At least since the beginning of the modern period, there has been an understanding that church doctrine did not drop full-formed from the Apostles, but is a process of organic development. The last fifty years of Reformation research have revealed that Protestant theology, although in many ways a recovery of sublimated ideas from an earlier period of the church, is also heavily indebted to certain developments in late medievalism. Further, the theology of the Protestant confessions is not identical to the theology of the early Reformers, but is an outworking, systematization, and in some cases alteration of those ideas.

So, for a denomination to tie itself irrevocably to a confession of faith, particularly a very detailed one, seems to inhibit its ability to continue to progress theologically.

Also, there is a difference between the creeds and the confession. The creeds establish a basic sine qua non of Christianity. They make no attempt to spell out everything a Christian should believe or how a church should conduct itself. The confessions of the modern period were aiming at something far more comprehensive.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

We're talking about the PCA here. There's hardly anything like an irrevocable tie to the Westminster standards; I mean it's Swiss cheese with all the exceptions allowed now.
*Not to mention constitutionally there's no irrevocable tie; it can changed.

 

[eqdj]

... my thoughts are that it seems clear enough that the Confession is the doctrinal statement of Reformed denominations, so I'm confused why some people attack Reformed people over this issue since it's the denomination's stated beliefs

 

[ProtestantBankie]

The Pope is not a subordinate standard to the Romanist.
For reformed folks, the confessions are subordinate tools and if they were wrong we would throw them out.
We are satisfied, with the confession, that they do not contradict the word of God.

We must not "prove someone wrong" based on the confession, unless it is a question of vows. If a man makes an oath, he must either fulfill it or repent of it.

 

[thbslawson]

I'm going to play the "Leithart's advocate" here for moment. We affirm that the WCF is NOT equal with Scripture nor is it infallible, that's clear. So if this is the case, under what circumstances could the WCF be corporately "reevaluated" in light of Scripture to either reaffirm what it summarizes or correct anything that is perceived as being out of accord with Scripture? It seems that if someone were to call for this that it would be strongly opposed. So if we affirm that it is not a "paper pope", in what way do we corporately and continually in a practical and public way hold it under the scrutiny of Scripture? (alliteration unintended)

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Confessionalism will never be Popish. It can't even be like the Pope. One is an Ecclesiastical office that the Scriptures no where confess. What these guys are against is something else.

The word confession (Greek "homologeo") means "to speak the same thing".

"I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession..." 1 Timothy 6:13


"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation". Romans 10:9-10


"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both". Acts 23:8

Grace Covenant Church of Virginia Beach - Hampton Roads Confession of Faith
​

 

[JoannaV]

Confessionalism is in some ways opposite to the Pope because a Confession remains constant whereas the Pope's infallible statements can change!

I have seen some people in some situations who do argue over-much from their Confession when they should be arguing from the Bible. Which might just mean stating your position as the Confession states it and then presenting the Scripture proofs: hardly a radically difficult move. But it seems silly when a Christian asks you something to answer, "The LBCF says xyz" and then run away. That won't convince them Biblically of anything, nor will it lead them to confessionalism! That's the only little bit of truth I can see in that silly statement

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I'm going to play the "Leithart's advocate" here for moment. We affirm that the WCF is NOT equal with Scripture nor is it infallible, that's clear. So if this is the case, under what circumstances could the WCF be corporately "reevaluated" in light of Scripture to either reaffirm what it summarizes or correct anything that is perceived as being out of accord with Scripture? It seems that if someone were to call for this that it would be strongly opposed. So if we affirm that it is not a "paper pope", in what way do we corporately and continually in a practical and public way hold it under the scrutiny of Scripture? (alliteration unintended)

Why? To illustrate a point? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Let me remind everyone here that we admit that our Confessions have stood a test of Time.

Let me also remind everyone that...

b. Confessional Subscription: Officially, the Puritanboard is governed by the Westminster Standards and will acquiesce to them in ultimate matters of any controversies on the Puritanboard. Some of our moderators are Baptist and hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF). Others hold to the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and theCanons of Dordt).

c. Historic Creeds: All members of this board hold to the basic creeds of the church: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, and the Definitions of Chalcedon.

d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

e. Under some circumstances, the Admins may approve an applicant who does not fully confess one of these historic Reformed confessions but whose soteriological and ecclesiological journey is taking them down that path. This has included some Lutherans, Episcopalians, and some independents in the process of Reforming.

f. New applicants must state clearly, in their biography, the Confession they subscribe to and where they take exceptions, if any. If they do not subscribe to one of the pre-requisite Confessions they should either refrain from applying or provide sufficient information to the Admins to determine their suitability for membership. Simply stating: "I am a 5-point Calvinist" does not qualify.

Those are the rules..... Let me also restate....

Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

 

[thbslawson]

I'm going to play the "Leithart's advocate" here for moment. We affirm that the WCF is NOT equal with Scripture nor is it infallible, that's clear. So if this is the case, under what circumstances could the WCF be corporately "reevaluated" in light of Scripture to either reaffirm what it summarizes or correct anything that is perceived as being out of accord with Scripture? It seems that if someone were to call for this that it would be strongly opposed. So if we affirm that it is not a "paper pope", in what way do we corporately and continually in a practical and public way hold it under the scrutiny of Scripture? (alliteration unintended)

Why? To illustrate a point? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Let me remind everyone here that we admit that our Confessions have stood a test of Time.

Let me also remind everyone that...

First, it was an honest question, because it's been honestly asked by people and needs to be addressed. Non-confessional people, including former Catholics and Orthodox, have pointed their fingers at this and have point blank said to me, "Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it." So the question is fair.

Second, I think the incredulity at which even my hypothetical question was received only fuels the fires of Leithart's arguments (with which I don't agree by the way). When I've raised this question before in other circles it has raised the objection of "How dare you suggest such a thing." I should be able to discuss the need to answer such questions from "outsiders" without my motives being questioned.

 

[py3ak]

So, for a denomination to tie itself irrevocably to a confession of faith, particularly a very detailed one, seems to inhibit its ability to continue to progress theologically.

That is only true if it is taken for granted:
1. That the Confession itself cannot be altered under any circumstances (I suppose what you meant by irrevocably). I'm not aware of any denomination that has done that.
2. That doctrinal progress necessarily involves changing what has previously been confessed. I doubt it will be denied that Fairbairn and Vos did develop more fully things that were only seminally present in previous thought - but that didn't compel them to dissent with the Westminster Standards of the 3FU. In fact it would seem that most progress would not involve changing what has already been confessed, because truth is consistent and coherent. Much progress has been made in many ways since the Nicene Creed - but the Nicene Creed still stands as an accurate statement of our beliefs on the topics which it covers.

 

[davenporter]

The Scripture is infallible, and the Holy Spirit's interpretation of the Scripture is infallible. Whereas the Confessions obviously are not infallible, they are useful insofar as they are faithful to the precepts taught in the Scriptures.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

"Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it."

First off let me restate what I have known.....

Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

You left that out.

I teach more about the biblical relevance of the 66 books than you know. I had to learn it. I expect everyone to. Why the 66 books? Let us look at History and evidence. I have been attacked and taught on this topic. I will just at this point even refer to St. Jerome and others. I refer to St. Jerome for those who want to enquire on the Roman side.

Second, I think the incredulity at which even my hypothetical question was received only fuels the fires of Leithart's arguments (with which I don't agree by the way). When I've raised this question before in other circles it has raised the objection of "How dare you suggest such a thing." I should be able to discuss the need to answer such questions from "outsiders" without my motives being questioned.

I don't if the Church is informed as Leithart should be. The Confession and the Catechism's are quite well explained. When did any of those who claim them last read them? I find that a most problematic thing. I don't think they have. In fact... I am sure they haven't read them fully. They are wonderful and full expressions. What do you think Leithart has said that is relevant and biblical that the Confession of Scripture agrees with him on? What do you think Leithart has said and where the Bible and the Confession disagrees upon? Leithart says he disagrees with the Confession but is Confessional. He does not in my opinion. And I am not a Westminster California propagator. Do what I asked and remember........

Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

 

[Philip]

I would answer Leithart by challenging him that if he believes the confession to be not in accord with Scripture on a fundamental point (ie: one where exception would challenge the basic structure) then in good conscience he should either a) resign from the PCA (and, in Leithart's case, I would suggest that he would be more at home across the Thames) b) advocate changing the confession.

I do not believe the confessions to be anything more than a subordinate standard which can be changed if they are found, on any point, not to reflect the clear teaching of Scripture. Leithart has the right idea with regard to the Bible, but the wrong idea with regard to church order and how to handle conflict with the confession. His view of confessionalism has more in common with the Anglican view of the 39 Articles than with historic Presbyterian and Reformed thought.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It is uncharitable to presume that when the question is raised about changing the confession, and those holding said confession object, that this is somehow because the document is considered infallible and unchangeable, instead of the simple fact that those objecting a proposed change, find the confession's statement remains a faithful statement of Scripture doctrine. Again, the mechanism is there to make changes; that it remains a conservative process is as it should be; i.e. changes should not be as easy as those of the French fashion. And again, I don't think the problem in our day is an over referencing of the confessions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

MR. COLDWELL, Thanks. Stated in the Standards and Confessions. Even my own denomination has it's own Testimony where they disagree. The Confession is not the Pope. It is what it is. But the RC Pope thing is out of bounds. One Man over Many... Even if it isn't tried and proven by Scripture or history. They (The Roman Catholics) oppose even the Old Covenant Scripts which the New Testify to and show fulfillment. There is a lot of scholarship and testimony to this stuff. John Calvin himself loved the Early Church Fathers.
.

Edited for link to Confession and Church Testimony....

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/images/documents/constitution2010.pdf

 

[Philip]

It is uncharitable to presume that when the question is raised about changing the confession

But this is exactly the problem: no change to the confession has been proposed. If Leithart wants to claim that the confession is out of accord with Scriptural teaching, then he should start gathering support for a change to it rather than challenging the confessional principle. The debate should be over what Scripture teaches and whether the confession is in accord with it (and I believe that it is in accord on this point) rather than whether confessionalism is a good principle.

 

[thbslawson]

"Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it."

First off let me restate what I have known.....

Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

You left that out.

Sorry, that was unintentional.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm not seeking to "modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions..." I'm asking how you defend against the charge of perceived infallibility by non-confessional (non-Reformed), or even new Christians. To some it appears that we treat the Confessions as infallible, and one of their arguments is that we never scrutinize it.

I teach more about the biblical relevance of the 66 books than you know. I had to learn it. I expect everyone to. Why the 66 books? Let us look at History and evidence. I have been attacked and taught on this topic. I will just at this point even refer to St. Jerome and others. I refer to St. Jerome for those who want to enquire on the Roman side.

Second, I think the incredulity at which even my hypothetical question was received only fuels the fires of Leithart's arguments (with which I don't agree by the way). When I've raised this question before in other circles it has raised the objection of "How dare you suggest such a thing." I should be able to discuss the need to answer such questions from "outsiders" without my motives being questioned.

I don't if the Church is informed as Leithart should be. The Confession and the Catechism's are quite well explained. When did any of those who claim them last read them? I find that a most problematic thing. I don't think they have. In fact... I am sure they haven't read them fully. They are wonderful and full expressions. What do you think Leithart has said that is relevant and biblical that the Confession of Scripture agrees with him on? What do you think Leithart has said and where the Bible and the Confession disagrees upon? Leithart says he disagrees with the Confession but is Confessional. He does not in my opinion. And I am not a Westminster California propagator. Do what I asked and remember........

I am not agreeing with Leithart. I thought I stated that clearly, hence my attempt at humor with the phrase "play Leithart's advocate". It means I'm going to ask a question that someone else would ask, not because I agree with the premise but because it's a question that needs to be accurately answered when asked. The question is, if we say that the Confessions are NOT infallible, in what practical ways do we demonstrate that by holding them accountable to Scripture? I think this is a fair question for a non-confessional, non-Reformed person to ask.

Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

I agree wholeheartedly. But let me ask another tough question, what venue would a person have to present such "proof"? Would he be given a fair hearing?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Philip. Have you read the report and the conclusion of the NWP?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sorry guys, I am closing this thread. This turned into an issue that is still being sought out by a Presbytery. The question was good. I believe it has been answered. Out of respect for the Church this discussion needs to stop because of where it has gone for now. I admit I have already made my conclusion and I might be incorrect. This isn't a Popish thing. It is a thing that has respect for Elders, and a Presbytery that is still in Session as many know. The end matter has not been decided. When it has we can discuss it then. The Court is still in Session as they say.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Agreed; I'm addressing the general question that seems to have been raised about changing the standards and how one should view those opposed to any particular change.

It is uncharitable to presume that when the question is raised about changing the confession

But this is exactly the problem: no change to the confession has been proposed. If Leithart wants to claim that the confession is out of accord with Scriptural teaching, then he should start gathering support for a change to it rather than challenging the confessional principle. The debate should be over what Scripture teaches and whether the confession is in accord with it (and I believe that it is in accord on this point) rather than whether confessionalism is a good principle.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This can stay open as a discussion as long as we are not going into the current situation concerning Leithart or the NWP. It is a current situation I believe that is headed for appeal. Well, that might not be the correct terminology. I believe that those involved were encouraged to not speak about it.

The situation is still pending.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I made this decision. I know how hot it is. Blame me and not Rich or the board.

 

[KMK]

I'm asking how you defend against the charge of perceived infallibility by non-confessional (non-Reformed), or even new Christians.

Are the charges being leveled at an individual or at a church/denomination?

 

[Fly Caster]

I'm going to play the "Leithart's advocate" here for moment. We affirm that the WCF is NOT equal with Scripture nor is it infallible, that's clear. So if this is the case, under what circumstances could the WCF be corporately "reevaluated" in light of Scripture to either reaffirm what it summarizes or correct anything that is perceived as being out of accord with Scripture? It seems that if someone were to call for this that it would be strongly opposed. So if we affirm that it is not a "paper pope", in what way do we corporately and continually in a practical and public way hold it under the scrutiny of Scripture? (alliteration unintended)

Why? To illustrate a point? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Let me remind everyone here that we admit that our Confessions have stood a test of Time.

Let me also remind everyone that...

First, it was an honest question, because it's been honestly asked by people and needs to be addressed. Non-confessional people, including former Catholics and Orthodox, have pointed their fingers at this and have point blank said to me, "Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it." So the question is fair.

Second, I think the incredulity at which even my hypothetical question was received only fuels the fires of Leithart's arguments (with which I don't agree by the way). When I've raised this question before in other circles it has raised the objection of "How dare you suggest such a thing." I should be able to discuss the need to answer such questions from "outsiders" without my motives being questioned.

"Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it." So the question is fair.

I'm going to attempt to address something here, but know that I may not be using the correct terminology in making my point. If that's the case and someone else can see my point, any clarification will be appreciated.

When I was being examined for the office of deacon, one of the elders asked me to explain why the ministry of the church is said to be "ministerial and declarative, but not legislative." I was a little caught off guard, but my bumbling answer was acceptable-- "I guess it's because it isn't the job of the church to legislate."

I said that to say this-- It seems to me that the Confession IS always being "questioned", but not according to the prevailing, ever-changing opinion of whatever current wind blows. The Confession declares what scripture has already said, and that does not change. It is constantly "questioned," in a judicial sense, everytime someone comes to trial on charges of errant doctrine. I "question" it each time I read, and am not going to agree with something there that does not accord with scripture. It is "questioned" each time an elder teaches a class on the Confession and shows from the proof texts how it's statements are derived.

Before we going throwing the Confession before the pragmatic, whimsical trends of our day in order to "question" everything by counting noses to see what is true, we need to remember that about 150 men, most of them far more grounded that most of us are, met together over a period of 6 years to hash it out. And it's stood the test of time with little change for almost 400 years. Unlike the proclamations of a real Pope, who blurts out as authoritive whatever crosses his mind, these documents are carefully prepared and tested summarizations of scripture. Any "questioning," in a legislative sense, must not be done lightly.

 

[thbslawson]

"Look, see, you have your document. You say it's not infallible, but you never question it." So the question is fair.

I'm going to attempt to address something here, but know that I may not be using the correct terminology in making my point. If that's the case and someone else can see my point, any clarification will be appreciated.

When I was being examined for the office of deacon, one of the elders asked me to explain why the ministry of the church is said to be "ministerial and declarative, but not legislative." I was a little caught off guard, but my bumbling answer was acceptable-- "I guess it's because it isn't the job of the church to legislate."

I said that to say this-- It seems to me that the Confession IS always being "questioned", but not according to the prevailing, ever-changing opinion of whatever current wind blows. The Confession declares what scripture has already said, and that does not change. It is constantly "questioned," in a judicial sense, everytime someone comes to trial on charges of errant doctrine. I "question" it each time I read, and am not going to agree with something there that does not accord with scripture. It is "questioned" each time an elder teaches a class on the Confession and shows from the proof texts how it's statements are derived.

Before we going throwing the Confession before the pragmatic, whimsical trends of our day in order to "question" everything by counting noses to see what is true, we need to remember that about 150 men, most of them far more grounded that most of us are, met together over a period of 6 years to hash it out. And it's stood the test of time with little change for almost 400 years. Unlike the proclamations of a real Pope, who blurts out as authoritive whatever crosses his mind, these documents are carefully prepared and tested summarizations of scripture. Any "questioning," in a legislative sense, must not be done lightly.

Yes! That's a great explanation!

My point was not to cause contention, but to point out that if the charge of "paper popism" is levied against us, then we need to be prepared to defend it. My own experience is with people in the Russian world who have come out of Eastern Orthodoxy. They've come to relinquish the thought that the Patriarch of Moscow is infallible, only to be a little taken back when presented with the WCF, and raise the question "Wait a minute, I thought you believed in Scripture alone, what's this?" To a person who is either a new convert, coming from another denomination, or is a new Presbyterian, adherence to the confession could appear confusing. My point was that we need to be able to explain how it is not the same as Scripture. You did that well.