Richard,
I understand the concern, but this is a false quandry. No one says the Confessions are infallible and inerrant. Instead, we confess them because they are biblical. They have no authority of their own, but derive their authority from Scripture, the norma normata. This is a legitimate difference in our confessional traditions. We confess what we do because (quia) it agrees with the Word of God, while our Presbyterian brothers (at least American Presbyterians) do so in so far as (quatenus) it agrees with the Word of God.
What ends up happening, and I see this with seminary students as I am 20 minutes from Westminster and have my own interns, is that they devise a "topical" or "doctrinal" sermon that they have come up with and that is seen to be more biblical than deriving a sermon from the points given in a given catechism question and answer.
For example, Heidelberg 45 exposits the resurrection in three points:
Q. What benefit do we receive from the “resurrection” of Christ?
A. First, by His resurrection He has overcome death, that He might make us partakers of the righteousness which He has obtained for us by His death. Second, by His power we are also now raised up to a new life. Third, the resurrection of Christ is to us a sure pledge of our blessed resurrection.
These three benefits come directly from Romans 4, 6, and 8. If a preacher simply used those three points and those three texts, would he not be preaching the Word of God? After all, the apostles themselves did not preach in Acts from one text, but explained the person and work of Christ in a thematic and topical way from the Old Testament. Just read Acts 2 and you'll see Joel 2 and Psalm 16 among others.
Once? OK. Twice? Maybe. But every year?
I agree it is a false dichotomy to speak of preaching from Scripture instead of the catechism -- the catechism faithfully expounds Scripture; but I do not think it is a false dichotomy to insist on preaching *systematically* through Scripture instead of preaching systematically through the catechism, especially seeing the catechism purports to be a *systematic* exposition of Scripture. You are then preaching a system of a system, which is in effect making a copy of a copy. It is best to make a copy of the original. Less fading results.
Rev. Winzer,
Maybe I'm reading Rev. Hyde a bit differently here. I think his concern (and criticism) of the way many approach their exegesis is that each week becomes a somewhat new process of dogmatics to mine the texts and determine (for instance) what the Biblical view of a particular doctrine is. He used a good example: the resurrection of Christ.
It would seem to me that, in addition to the normal exegetical work to be done that week, a minister would want to consult how the Confession
confesses concerning those doctrines. Perhaps it might remind him of something or keep him in check lest he want to teach on something that is counter-Confessional. Perhaps, for a particular doctrine, he might even build upon what the Confession says and elaborate further given the particular context.
Interestingly, when we're in discussions on the PB, I find you to be one of the more consistent folks who reminds people of what the Scriptures say using our Confessions as a guide. I don't view you as answering a Scriptural question with the Confession, per se, but you do bound your interpretation of the Scriptures to the Church's testimony of certain dogmatic issues.
Maybe a more fitting example that Rev. Hyde might have offered is Baptism. As we're all aware, we have plenty of ministers who have "exegeted" the Scriptures to come up with a contra-Confessional view of what Baptism confers. I'm thinking here of the Federal Vision. Were they to place more value in the Church's testimony of the Word and less in their own personal systematics, they might avoid such error. We both have recently engaged some others who want to jettison the Confession, when convenient, because it doesn't comport with their interpretation of the Word of God.
That's a very good statement, I admit. My problem, though, is that, in my experience, I've run across Reformed people (not very many, fortunately) who are positively obsessed with the secondary standards - always going to them first, instead of the Scriptures (because Bible study is hard while looking up something in the standards is easy?) - to answer theological or practical questions.
Further, these same people are so obsessed with the standards that they claim that, not only can they not be changed, they can't even be questioned. They've raised the standards to a position higher than the Word of God.
That's why the quia position makes me nervous. It's so easy to just let yourself slide into a position where the standards answer all questions, with the Bible - unconsciously in most cases - assuming a secondary position.
Richard,
I agree with this but it's been my experience that this is the case because people don't know the Scriptural reasons why the Confessions are right on these issues. This whole issue of the "Confession v. the Scriptures" keeps coming up. I'm sure some people reading me might start believing that I'm taking a slavish view of the Confessions but I've tried to be very careful to separate the Confession from the Authority itself. I believe Rev. Hyde articulates it very well.
I honestly don't know enough about the history of American Presbyterian Confessionalism and cannot form my thoughts in the historic and theological language with the same skill as Revs. Winzer and Hyde can. I do become increasingly convinced of the Truth that the unity of the faith, which Paul exhorts the Church to is not achieved by each man going to the Scriptures outside the context of the Church, and then Confessing with the Church only when he agrees the Church is correct. What kind of unity of the faith is that? Whether or not a Confession is infallible, it still remains with the Church to settle matters of controversy. Were it not so, discipline would be impossible at the local and the Presbytery level.
It seems to me that everybody wants to enforce discipline when it agrees with their convictions but then they want to strip the Church of its authority if it doesn't. Witness recent discussions where FV folk want to denigrate the PCA for declaring something is against the WCF. Men who speak against the Confession of a Church in such a way are really saying that, when push comes to shove, their individual authority to settle such matters exceeds that of the Church as a whole.
