Lens of the Confession

[One Little Nail]

On the Not KJVO,KJVP. http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/not-kjvo-kjvp-81126/index3.html#post1025119

armourbearer has said;

The very term "holy Scripture" requires a confessional understanding. So yes, it must be the proper hermeneutic to approach Scripture through the lens of the Confessions. Some theological framework must be brought to it. It is only right that it should be the orthodox one.

to which I replied;
I Believe The Scriptures give Legitimacy to The Confession & not Vice-a-Verse, that would be putting the cart before the horse it was The Solemn League & Covenant that gave birth to The Confession, The Scripture is Infallible The Confession is not,
The Westminster Divines in their Confession state that Councils my err, What was Westminster if not a Church Council even The Scottish Kirk made a Declarative Statement in regards to The Civil Governments power in regarding the Calling of
Councils/Assemblies if I remember rightly, that's just another way of saying they didn't agree with that section, as I said Confession are not Infallible & The Westminster Divines, they have said themselves Councils may err.

What if the Confession errs, My Faith is in God & The Lord Jesus Christ & His Word not in The Confession, it troubles me not it's just a mere fallible guide, I hold to Supralapsarianism as I well know you do also The Westminster Confession teaches & favours
the Infralapsarian Position so if were right then The Confession err's, so which lapsarian lens do we approach The Scriptures with or do we let The Scriptures Speak for themselves & let them be our Confession, we Christians need to return to Sola Scriptura

This is why Confessions will always be & musts be subordinate & inferior standards, like the Law points to The Lord Jesus Christ, they must always be pointing us back to to The Supreme Standard, The Scriptures.

To which armourbearer replied;

The supremacy of Scripture is itself a "standard" of interpretation. There are others who do not read Scripture through this "standard." By our confession we approach Scripture as supreme. The Confession is subordinate to Scripture, but it is still a "standard." The authority of the truth has not been diminished by the simple fact that it has been formulated in propositional terms.

any thoughts?

 

[David Pope]

Which confessional documents do you subscribe to? Thanks!

 

[One Little Nail]

I am a lay-person , I haven't subscribed to any unless you mean on the Board the Westminster Confession
was the one I was closest to in understanding & acceptence.

 

[Logan]

The point that I think Winzer is trying to make is that we all come to Scripture with presuppositions. A right understanding of Scripture demands that we see it as holy, as the very word of God, as containing absolute truth.

I think the Reformers and Puritans would have had some difficulties with the phrasing "confessional lens", as they were careful to exclude any testimony of men from a right understanding of Scriptures. Thus their emphasis on the "Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God."

I think I agree with Winzer's meaning, but not his terminology. An unbeliever, with no knowledge of the Scriptures or confessions, can come to faith by reading them and being enlightened by the Spirit. I am leery of calling it a "confessional lens" just because it happens to coincide with a confession, however. Perhaps "spiritual lens" would be less problematic.

And regardless of whether we approach Scripture through a confessional lens or not, I think Winzer would agree that we must always be willing to let our lens be corrected by Scripture.

 

[sevenzedek]

A proper understanding of the Scriptures cannot be discerned apart from the church, because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
... the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

While the Westminster Documents are subject to the Scriptures, a proper understanding of the Scriptures must be understood according to the church's understanding of them. Therefore, the Scriptures must be understood through the lens of the church's summary statement. In turn, the summary statement must be firmly grounded upon the Scriptures themselves. This is merely the church believing and interpreting in unison. However, if the standards are ever to be found with fault, the Scriptures remain the same while the standards change. Of course, this has happened before, depending on the ecclesiastical authority.

This is not putting the cart before the horse.

 

[MW]

I note at the outset that this thread is a spinoff from a thread dealing with translation choice. Why is it important to note that? Well, simply put, the person making the choice of "Scripture" should be doing so on the basis of "standards." In fact, every choice related to the Scriptures, whether it is a matter of text, translation, interpretation, or application, requires "standards." As I observed in the earlier thread, it is only right that orthodox "standards" be employed. It would be hypocritical to claim to have "standards" and then consciously act in contradiction to them. The idea that "freedom" must include the ability to choose apart from "standards" is simply ridiculous and self-destructive. Mock wisdom in this way and wisdom shall mock you.

 

[Logan]

A proper understanding of the Scriptures cannot be discerned apart from the church, because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Turretin, primarily responding to papists but perhaps relevant here.

The question then amounts to this---why, or on account of what, do we believe that the Bible is the word of God; or what argument does the Holy Spirit principally use to convince us of the inspiration of Scripture? The testimony and voice of the church, or the marks impressed upon Scripture itself? Our opponents [the papists] assert the former; we the latter.
...
p89
[Else] The authority of the church would be prior to that of the Scriptures and so would be the first thing to be believed (upon which our faith at first would depend and into which it would finally be resolved)

p90
We do not deny that the church has many functions in relation to the Scriptures. She is: (1) the keeper of the oracles of God to whom they are committed and who preserves the authentic tables of the covenant of grace with the greatest fidelity, like a notary (Rom 3:2); (2) the guide, to point out the Scriptures and lead us to them (Is 30:21); (3) the defender, to vindicate and defend them by separating the genuine books from the spurious, in which sense she may be called the ground (hedraioma) of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15); (4) interpreter inquiring into the unfolding of the true sense. But all these imply a ministerial only and not a magisterial power. Through her indeed, we believe, but not on account of her;

p92
The knowledge of a thing may be confused or distinct. The church can be known before the Scriptures by a confused knowledge, but a distinct knowledge of the Scriptures ought to precede because the truth of the church can be ascertained only from the Scriptures. The church can be apprehended by us before the Scriptures by a human faith, as an assembly of men using the same sacred things; yet it can be known and believed as an assembly of believers and the communion of saints by a divine faith, only after the marks of the church which Scripture supplies have become known.

p93
The church is called "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) not because she supports and gives authority to the truth (since the truth is rather the foundation upon which the church is built, Eph. 2:20), but because it stands before the church as a pillar and makes itself conspicuous to all. Therefore it is called a pillar, not in an architectural sense (as pillars are used for the support of buildings), but in a forensic and political sense (as the edicts of the emperor and the decrees and laws of the magistrates were usually posted against pillars before the court houses and praetoria and before the gates of the basilica so that all might be informed of them. So the church is the pillar of the truth both by reason of promulgating and making it known (because she is bound to promulgate the law of God, and heavenly truth is attached to it so that it may become known to all) and by reason of guarding it. For she ought not only to set it forth, but also to vindicate and defend it. Therefore she is called not only a pillar, but also a stay, by which the truth when known may be vindicated and preserved pure and entire against all corruptions. But she is not called a foundation, in the sense of giving to the truth itself its own substructure and firmness.

 

[sevenzedek]

It is important to note the sense in which I (and perhaps others) would use the word lens. The Standards are a lens only in a ministerial sense; not a magisterial sense. This, from what I am able to ascertain, is how the Westminster framers intended it.

This sense can be seen in the notion of a catechism. One of the reasons for catechizing the church was so that she would be able to get more out of the church's teaching—thus we have a lens understood in a ministerial sense. I understand that this lens is not infallible, but it is the best place I know to begin. In this way, I imitate the faith of those who have gone before me in the Lord.

If the Standards are not an accurate summary of Christian doctrine as found in the Scriptures, they have no business being a secondary document for the church and should be corrected according to what the Scriptures really teach.

Is there any disagreement?

 

[MW]

Therefore she is called not only a pillar, but also a stay, by which the truth when known may be vindicated and preserved pure and entire against all corruptions. But she is not called a foundation, in the sense of giving to the truth itself its own substructure and firmness.

Therein lies the difference between the Protestant and Romanist views of church authority and tradition. The only effective means to refute the Romanist view is to assert the Protestant one. Altogether denying church authority and tradition is the sure means to corrupt the Christian faith and drive people to Rome.

The distinction between ministerial and magisterial is very important.

 

[sevenzedek]

Altogether denying church authority and tradition is the sure means to corrupt the Christian faith and drive people to Rome.

Pastor Winzer,

Would you be so kind as to elaborate as briefly as you are willing?

Thanks.

 

[One Little Nail]

A proper understanding of the Scriptures cannot be discerned apart from the church, because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
... the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

While the Westminster Documents are subject to the Scriptures, a proper understanding of the Scriptures must be understood according to the church's understanding of them. Therefore, the Scriptures must be understood through the lens of the church's summary statement. In turn, the summary statement must be firmly grounded upon the Scriptures themselves. This is merely the church believing and interpreting in unison. However, if the standards are ever to be found with fault, the Scriptures remain the same while the standards change. Of course, this has happened before, depending on the ecclesiastical authority.

This is not putting the cart before the horse.

No then what is it then? your horse is facing in the wrong direction!
The Church is The Congregation of The Lord (to borrow an Old Testament phrase) along with it's Representatve Elders
& Ministers it is charged with Firstly Believing, Secondly Obeying & Thirdly Espousing The Scriptures & is the Pillar &
Ground of The Truth as long as & only as long as it continues in this pursuit, otherwise we have the situation that was
present at The Glorious Reformation where the apostate catholic church claimed it was the pillar & ground of the truth
simply cause it was "the church" & was this by nature, defacto whereas Calvin in his institutes quoted the prophet
Jerimiah 7:4 The Temple,The Temple,The Temple trust not in lying words, the jews seemingly had a similar concept

The Scriptures can be understood by the common believing plowboy due to their perpescuity & the fact that Scripture interprets Scripture, & his priesthood & right to private understanding.

must they be understood through according to the Church's understanding of them, which Church? us Pesbyterians
can't even agree among ourselves as for the Baptist they joke among themselves that there like Heinz Beans 57 varieties
what of the Anglicans, Methodists,Eastern & Oriental Orthodox, Liberals so which Church are you talking about? if the
churches & their creeds were all subject to the Scriptures we would then have agreement & only then.

 

[irresistible_grace]

The Scriptures can be understood by the common believing plowboy due to their perpescuity & the fact that Scripture interprets Scripture, & his priesthood & right to private understanding.

I'm not sure I'm following you...
2 Peter 1:20 says, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

 

[sevenzedek]

All I mean to say by the word lens is that everyone comes to the Scriptures with a worldview and that the only proper worldview with which we ought to approach the Scriptures is that of the true church's teaching as they faithfully expose the word of God. The Scriptures cannot be properly understood without a properly informed worldview. The Scriptures do not rest on our worldview, but our worldview rests upon the Scriptures.

If I am free to interpret the Scriptures without any lens at all, as your post would seem to assert and seems quite impossible in the first place, then what forbids me from understanding the Scriptures from, say, the lens of the Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs)? You may, perhaps, retort by saying that the JWs do not interpret the Scriptures correctly. You would be correct. However, on what basis would you make such an assertion? The answer would, of course, be according to your own lens you bring to the Scriptures. Is your lens properly informed?

If you do not have a church to run to, what foundation do you then have? Do you personally have more authority over your person than the church? No. The church has not only the power to bind men's consciences to faithful teaching, but also to govern your person as you personally participate in the affairs of the assembly.

God has given teachers to us to faithfully expound the word of God. Our teachers provide a proper lens through which we understand the Scriptures when they faithfully teach them. This is not the same as the error of the Roman church who erroneously suppose that they give the Scriptures their authority and add to them as they will. They sit over the Scriptures. We sit under them. We are first informed by the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit takes the things of Christ and reveals them to us. Then our elders authoritatively teach us truth by which we may correctly discern the sense of the word.

So, not only do we inevitably approach the Scriptures through a lens, our consciences are bound to keep the teaching of our elders as they faithfully preach the word as though God himself were speaking to us. This faithful preaching ought to be our lens and we are bound to it as God has given the church the authoritative keys to his kingdom to teach and govern.

This view I espouse is in direct opposition to the view that it is proper for someone to understand the Scriptures apart from the body of Christ as though someone thought it right to piously sit alone under a tree with his Bible and God alone in an effort to discover all that God intends for him to know. If we have no need for teachers to affect a proper understanding for those who need taught, then what purpose and authority do they have in the church? What authority do they have to bind men's consciences to obedience when a subject's understanding disagrees with the church's interpretation on a given matter. But God has given authority to the church. Teachers are given to the church for the very purpose of biblically informing the churches worldview-lens. This is the very function of teaching.

 

[Logan]

I thought this part of Turretin (cited earlier) was particularly helpful.

The knowledge of a thing may be confused or distinct. The church can be known before the Scriptures by a confused knowledge, but a distinct knowledge of the Scriptures ought to precede because the truth of the church can be ascertained only from the Scriptures. The church can be apprehended by us before the Scriptures by a human faith, as an assembly of men using the same sacred things; yet it can be known and believed as an assembly of believers and the communion of saints by a divine faith, only after the marks of the church which Scripture supplies have become known.

 

[sevenzedek]

Logan,

I already affirmed that the church sits under the Scriptures. You appear to be correcting where I am going astray. Where am I going wrong?

 

[Logan]

I don't know if you are going wrong, I'm probably not the best to speak to it. I was just posting what I found helpful with regard to the church being known because of the Scriptures. The terminology here seems quite tricky.

 

[irresistible_grace]

I thought this part of Turretin (cited earlier) was particularly helpful.

p90
We do not deny that the church has many functions in relation to the Scriptures. She is: (1) the keeper of the oracles of God to whom they are committed and who preserves the authentic tables of the covenant of grace with the greatest fidelity, like a notary (Rom 3:2); (2) the guide, to point out the Scriptures and lead us to them (Is 30:21); (3) the defender, to vindicate and defend them by separating the genuine books from the spurious, in which sense she may be called the ground (hedraioma) of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15); (4) interpreter inquiring into the unfolding of the true sense. But all these imply a ministerial only and not a magisterial power. Through her indeed, we believe, but not on account of her;*

And...

p93
The church is called "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) not because she supports and gives authority to the truth (since the truth is rather the foundation upon which the church is built, Eph. 2:20), but because it stands before the church as a pillar and makes itself conspicuous to all. Therefore it is called a pillar, not in an architectural sense (as pillars are used for the support of buildings), but in a forensic and political sense (as the edicts of the emperor and the decrees and laws of the magistrates were usually posted against pillars before the court houses and praetoria and before the gates of the basilica so that all might be informed of them. So the church is the pillar of the truth both by reason of promulgating and making it known (because she is bound to promulgate the law of God, and heavenly truth is attached to it so that it may become known to all) and by reason of guarding it. For she ought not only to set it forth, but also to vindicate and defend it. Therefore she is called not only a pillar, but also a stay, by which the truth when known may be vindicated and preserved pure and entire against all corruptions. But she is not called a foundation, in the sense of giving to the truth itself its own substructure and firmness

I don't think they "correct" where Jon is "going wrong" (because I'm not sure he is going wrong) but I think that these quotes reinforce what Jon said in post #8

It is important to note the sense in which I (and perhaps others) would use the word lens. The Standards are a lens only in a ministerial sense; not a magisterial sense. This, from what I am able to ascertain, is how the Westminster framers intended it.*

This sense can be seen in the notion of a catechism. One of the reasons for catechizing the church was so that she would be able to get more out of the church's teaching—thus we have a lens understood in a ministerial sense. I understand that this lens is not infallible, but it is the best place I know to begin. In this way, I imitate the faith of those who have gone before me in the Lord.

If the Standards are not an accurate summary of Christian doctrine as found in the Scriptures, they have no business being a secondary document for the church and should be corrected according to what the Scriptures really teach.

Everyone has a grid through which they read Scripture... the Westminster Standards are by far the most faithful to Scripture & therefore the best grid through which to read Scripture. If it is found unfaithful to Scripture in any place then the church should amend it but not disregard it entirely. The Westminster Standards are a beautiful illustration of the church protecting the "truth" (keeping, guiding, defendng & interpreting scripture with a ministerial only and not a magisterial power).

I like what "The Geneva Bible Translation Notes" had to say concerning 1 Timothy 3:15,

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the (7) house of God, which is the church of the living God, the (i) pillar and ground of the truth.

(7) The pastor always has to consider how he carries out his duties in the house of the living God, in which the treasure of the truth is kept.

(i) That is, with regard to man: for the Church rested upon that cornerstone, Christ, and is the preserver of the truth, but not the mother.

 

[sevenzedek]

I know I am not the best person to speak to this issue either, but I do speak from what I currently understand. The terminology is quite tricky. If the Standards are an accurate reflection of what the Scriptures really teach, then the terminology of how we address the authority of the Standards is almost going to appear as though we are placing it above or on the same level as Scripture itself. Nuance of language should be taken into consideration. Even then, many will find fault for lack of precise understanding.

For instance, WCF 8:2, "The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father..." We don't find this exact statement in the Bible, but, if we say that it is true because our confession teaches this Biblical truth, we don't mean to say that we understand this apart from the Biblical witness. Furthermore, we can say with an authority the same as God's holy word that if a person does not believe this, he is a heretic. Well, the Bible doesn't say this exact sentence either. If we assert these truths, are we without any Biblical authority because we didn't quote a sentence from the Bible verbatim?

Perhaps the role of the Standards should be addressed. What is the role of the Standards? Are they a restatement of what the Scriptures really teach? Then they carry the same authority as the very word of God; not as though they are the very foundation of the truth itself, but that they are an accurate summary of what is the already true. There are many ways to say a particular truth. Restating it in order to collate the Biblical witness and state it in other words does not diminish the verity of any particular claim of the Standards. If it does, it should be conformed to the Scriptures. Therefore, in as much as the Standards accurately restate the Scriptures, not only are they a worthy lens through which to read the word of God, they are binding upon men's consciences; not because the Scriptures derive their meaning from the Standards, rather, because the Standards derive their meaning from the Scriptures. Given the statement from WCF 8:2 above, who should argue with such a bold claim? While WCF 8:2 is not a sentence taken from the Bible, is it no less binding upon all men to believe such a statement as it accurately states what the Scriptures already teach?

Who do I have to quote in order to get some traction here? Am I that far off anyway?

 

[MW]

Would you be so kind as to elaborate as briefly as you are willing?

Christians have needs. God has deemed it wise to supply those needs through human instrumentality. He has vested authority and given promises to the church. If Protestant churches fail to exercise lawful authority it will drive Christians to seek the fulfilment of their needs elsewhere. Rome will only be too happy to receive them, and to allure them by means of its corrupt notions of church authority.

 

[Peairtach]

A proper understanding of the Scriptures cannot be discerned apart from the church, because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
... the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

While the Westminster Documents are subject to the Scriptures, a proper understanding of the Scriptures must be understood according to the church's understanding of them. Therefore, the Scriptures must be understood through the lens of the church's summary statement. In turn, the summary statement must be firmly grounded upon the Scriptures themselves. This is merely the church believing and interpreting in unison. However, if the standards are ever to be found with fault, the Scriptures remain the same while the standards change. Of course, this has happened before, depending on the ecclesiastical authority.

This is not putting the cart before the horse.

No then what is it then? your horse is facing in the wrong direction!
The Church is The Congregation of The Lord (to borrow an Old Testament phrase) along with it's Representatve Elders
& Ministers it is charged with Firstly Believing, Secondly Obeying & Thirdly Espousing The Scriptures & is the Pillar &
Ground of The Truth as long as & only as long as it continues in this pursuit, otherwise we have the situation that was
present at The Glorious Reformation where the apostate catholic church claimed it was the pillar & ground of the truth
simply cause it was "the church" & was this by nature, defacto whereas Calvin in his institutes quoted the prophet
Jerimiah 7:4 The Temple,The Temple,The Temple trust not in lying words, the jews seemingly had a similar concept

The Scriptures can be understood by the common believing plowboy due to their perpescuity & the fact that Scripture interprets Scripture, & his priesthood & right to private understanding.

must they be understood through according to the Church's understanding of them, which Church? us Pesbyterians
can't even agree among ourselves as for the Baptist they joke among themselves that there like Heinz Beans 57 varieties
what of the Anglicans, Methodists,Eastern & Oriental Orthodox, Liberals so which Church are you talking about? if the
churches & their creeds were all subject to the Scriptures we would then have agreement & only then.

The Confession and Catechisms are a deposit and distillation of 1,600 years of illumination by the Holy Spirit on the Bible, shedding light on the pages of Scripture.

The Holy Spirit didn't cease His work with regard to the Bible once it was inscripturated.

Clearly we are bound to immediately receive the Bible as God's Word. We are not bound to receive the Confession in the same way; each statement of the Confession must be read and examined by the believer in the light of Scripture to see that it agrees with Scripture. But as we study the Confession and see more and more how its doctine agrees with that of Scripture, we will become more and more confident in the teaching of the Confession as being a sound pair of Scripturally made spectacles by which to read Scripture, not that we would ascribe perfection or infallibility to it, or especially completion, as if the Spirit has not more to bring out of the riches of the Scriptures since the 1600s.

We see this to a much lesser extent than in the case of the WCF, when we read a book by a godly man which we say sheds light on the Scriptures.

It's a sort of "spiral" process of learning between the Bible and the Confession.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Logan]

Who do I have to quote in order to get some traction here? Am I that far off anyway?

Though not strictly applicable, I found this helpful, from A.A. Hodge in his commentary on the WCF, pg 1:

While, however, the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scriptures teach upon every subject into a consistent whole, and then adjust their teachings upon different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system. Every student of the Bible must do this; and all make it obvious that they do it, by the terms they use in their prayers and religious discourse, whether they admit or deny the propriety of human creeds and confessions. If they refuse the assistance afforded by the statements of doctrine slowly elaborated and defined by the Church, they must make out their own creed by their own unaided wisdom. The real question is not, as often pretended, between the Word of God and the creed of men, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God's people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the repudiator of creeds.

 

[sevenzedek]

Clearly we are bound to immediately receive the Bible as God's Word. We are not bound to receive the Confession in the same way; each statement of the Confession must be read and examined by the believer in the light of Scripture to see that it agrees with Scripture.

If we find that the confession agrees with the Scriptures, do you think we are bound to them as well? I would say yes because the confession must rest upon the Scriptures. This is where some probably think that I'm placing the confession over the Scriptures. But that is not what I am saying; am I?

 

[sevenzedek]

Who do I have to quote in order to get some traction here? Am I that far off anyway?

Though not strictly applicable, I found this helpful, from A.A. Hodge in his commentary on the WCF, pg 1:

While, however, the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scriptures teach upon every subject into a consistent whole, and then adjust their teachings upon different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system. Every student of the Bible must do this; and all make it obvious that they do it, by the terms they use in their prayers and religious discourse, whether they admit or deny the propriety of human creeds and confessions. If they refuse the assistance afforded by the statements of doctrine slowly elaborated and defined by the Church, they must make out their own creed by their own unaided wisdom. The real question is not, as often pretended, between the Word of God and the creed of men, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God's people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the repudiator of creeds.

That is helpful. Thanks.

 

[KMK]

If we find that the confession agrees with the Scriptures, do you think we are bound to them as well?

The confession of the orthodox church is that God is one God in three persons. If you are going to be a part of the orthodox church, then you are going to have to bind yourself to that confession.

 

[Peairtach]

Clearly we are bound to immediately receive the Bible as God's Word. We are not bound to receive the Confession in the same way; each statement of the Confession must be read and examined by the believer in the light of Scripture to see that it agrees with Scripture.

If we find that the confession agrees with the Scriptures, do you think we are bound to them as well? I would say yes because the confession must rest upon the Scriptures. This is where some probably think that I'm placing the confession over the Scriptures. But that is not what I am saying; am I?

Yes of course. And then when we are satisfied from Scripture that a particular part or doctrine of the Confession is the true one we shall continue to read Scripture with that lens, or illumination if you like.

No-one here is saying that the Confession is not our subordinate standard and derives its authority from Scripture, or that someone should blindly receive the WCF or the other confessions on the testimony of man, without looking to see if, and how, they agree with Scripture, the testimony of God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[sevenzedek]

I was reading the WCF this morning when I found WCF 31:3 applicable to our discussion and not in contradiction to the points I have been making.

WCF 31:3
3. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

 

[MW]

I was reading the WCF this morning when I found WCF 31:3 applicable to our discussion and not in contradiction to the points I have been making.

This is section four in the original Confession. It is a necessary qualifier, but what is the fact being qualified? Too often this fact is omitted or neglected. The fact is found in the section which is numbered "three" in the original Confession. It tells us that it belongeth to synods and councils "ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience," etc. Without a recognition of the ministerial authority of the church as taught in section three, the qualifier in section four is meaningless.

 

[sevenzedek]

I was reading the WCF this morning when I found WCF 31:3 applicable to our discussion and not in contradiction to the points I have been making.

This is section four in the original Confession. It is a necessary qualifier, but what is the fact being qualified? Too often this fact is omitted or neglected. The fact is found in the section which is numbered "three" in the original Confession. It tells us that it belongeth to synods and councils "ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience," etc. Without a recognition of the ministerial authority of the church as taught in section three, the qualifier in section four is meaningless.

I assume there is some substance in what are saying, but I can't wrap my head around it. Could you clarify your meaning?

 

[sevenzedek]

Pastor Winzer,

Are you saying that synods and councils have authority to judge matters of faith and conscience even though their judgments are not always perfect? This would mean that their fallibility is not a good case for denying their authority. When applied the current discussion, this would mean the fallibility of man does not reduce the authority of the confession.

 

[One Little Nail]

The Scriptures can be understood by the common believing plowboy due to their perspicuity & the fact that Scripture interprets Scripture, & his priesthood & right to private understanding.

I'm not sure I'm following you...
2 Peter 1:20 says, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

I wan"t to make the reference to Tyndale's famous comment that if he would like make the common plowboy to know more Scripture than the bigoted Bible Hating Romish Clergy!
The Perspicuity is a common Protestant Doctrine meaning simply that the Scriptures could be understood easily and needed not a Priestly(romish)Interpretation or rather obscuring,
we believers have a common Spiritual Priesthood which grants us access to God it based is on a Scriptural Foundation hence it is given us through the right of Private judgment,no need of clergy here either.

the Scripture you've quoted had me look up what Gill said on the matter you might find this interesting

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first,.... Especially, and in the first place, this is to be known, observed, and considered;

that no prophecy of the Scripture, that is contained in Scripture, be it what it will,

is of any private interpretation: not that this is levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer had not a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures
himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things; otherwise, why are such commended as doing well, by taking heed to prophecy, in the preceding verse, and this given as a reason to
encourage them to it? the words may be rendered, "of one's own interpretation"; that is, such as a natural man forms of himself, by the mere force of natural parts and wisdom, without the assistance of the Spirit of God; and which is done
without comparing spiritual things with spiritual; and which is not agreeably to the Scripture, to the analogy of faith, and mind of Christ; though rather this phrase should be rendered, "no prophecy of the Scripture is of a man's own impulse",
invention, or composition; is not human, but purely divine: and this sense carries in it a reason why the sure word of prophecy, concerning the second coming of Christ, should be taken heed to, and made use of as a light, till he does come;
because as no Scripture prophecy, so not that, is a contrivance of man's, his own project and device, and what his own spirit prompts and impels him to, but what is made by the dictates and impulse of the Spirit of God; for whatever may
be said of human predictions, or the false prophecies of lying men, who deliver them out how and when they please, nothing of this kind can be said of any Scripture prophecy, nor of this concerning the second coming of Christ; and this sense
the following words require.