The Authority of Scripture

[Alive in Christ]

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

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

In fairness brother, I don't think that article 16 is contradicting articles 3 and 4, seeing as how the part you highlighted in bold is followed by the qualifier "so as to".

 

[Sovereign Grace]

In fairness brother, I don't think that article 16 is contradicting articles 3 and 4, seeing as how the part you highlighted in bold is followed by the qualifier "so as to".

Trust me, I was a member a church of that denomination early on in my walk with Christ. They are close to being semi-Pelagian, as I held to those beliefs a few years, as that was what I was taught.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Trust me, I was a member a church of that denomination early on in my walk with Christ. They are close to being semi-Pelagian, as I held to those beliefs a few years, as that was what I was taught.

I trust you.

Based on my googling, those seem to be some kind of Primitive Baptist articles of faith. I was under the impression that, although they are not confessionally reformed, most Primitive Baptists do hold to a Calvinistic soteriology.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Hello Ben,

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

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:3-4 KJV)The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9 KJV)
Different churches will use these Scriptures to support understanding and teaching that are erroneous. A confession may clarify what a person holds to. Of course, I will go to Scripture to prove my view, and disprove error. Scripture is THE authority, and by which a confession is shown to be faithful or unfaithful to the word of God rightly understood.

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

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

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

In hearty agreement to all this!

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

Yes. I would disagree on some more peripheral matters on church polity for sure.

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

Hello Samuel!

I would still hold that the Bible is the only authority since apart from the bible, traditions have no authority.

I trust you.

Based on my googling, those seem to be some kind of Primitive Baptist articles of faith. I was under the impression that, although they are not confessionally reformed, most Primitive Baptists do hold to a Calvinistic soteriology.

Correct. They are on the edge of heresy.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would still hold that the Bible is the only authority since apart from the bible, traditions have no authority.

This is not the historic Reformed position. We say that confessions have ministerial, not magisterial authority. The Bible has magisterial authority. That distinction is one of the reasons we are neither Romanist nor Anabaptist.

 

[JvMill]

Brother. I do adhere to the 1689

I would still hold that the Bible is the only authority since apart from the bible, traditions have no authority

If scripture is the only authority than you do not subscribe or submit to a confession.

I can think of a bunch of other kinds of authority, other than the Bible:

Confessions, Creeds, Church History, tradition, church leadership (in its various forms across denominations), etc.

These are under the authority of scripture, but they are still an authority.

The issue is the way you are understanding authority.

 

[paranymph]

Notably, the Confession itself (2LBC) says right up front:

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. . .

Note that it does not say Scripture is the only authority. But that it is the only infallible authority for those particular things (salvation & godliness). It goes on to mention natural revelation as a source of truth.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

If scripture is the only authority than you do not subscribe or submit to a confession.

As I see it, the authority of church leaders, of the confessions, etc., is the authority of the bible, in that all their authority flows from scripture, and they have no extra-biblical authority.

 

[JvMill]

As I see it, the authority of church leaders, of the confessions, etc., is the authority of the bible, in that all their authority flows from scripture, and they have no extra-biblical authority.

I’m not sure if that is the appropriate language (“flows from”) for the relationship between the authority of scripture and that of other forms of authority. There’s a reason they use the language of magisterial and ministerial. Someone else can speak to this better than I.

Even if we do speak about it in the way you describe, using a confession in an in-house discussion is totally appropriate. It still has authority, even if it, as you say, that authority flows from scripture.

People subscribe to a confession because they think it is accurate. If it’s accurate, I can quote it to make a point, even prove a point! I’m just using its language to express what I think scripture says on a certain subject. Why use my own language when there is better language, time tested and well thought out language, to build upon? Why start from scratch? Especially why start from scratch if the person I’m talking to subscribes to the same (or a similar) confession? If they do not subscribe to the confession, I can still use it as a starting point because the confession is right, which is why I subscribe to it.

Edit:
Let me add this -

Your view of authority should allow for you to say that if someone cannot confess the apostles creed and Nicene creed (381) because of their ‘biblical’ convictions,’ they are not a Christian.

If your view of authority does not allow for that kind of statement, it is wrong.

 

[Alive in Christ]

As I see it, the authority of church leaders, of the confessions, etc., is the authority of the bible, in that all their authority flows from scripture, and they have no extra-biblical authority.

There are greater and lesser authorities. For instance, we know that God is the ultimate authority, yet we still submit to parents, instructors, and rulers. These all have authority because it has been granted so by God, and this is precisely why they are authorities. If we are instructed by the law to stop at a traffic light, would you call such authority "extra-biblical"? After all, the Bible says nothing about such matters. Likewise, while it is true that the confessions receive their authority from the scriptures, I believe such traditions can and do have authority provided scripture is not violated. This is why I am confessionally reformed - I believe the historic reformed confessions are correct and true, and therefore I quite naturally consider them to be authoritative.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Another thought that occurs for consideration- God has determined to work through church councils. The first NT such was the one recorded in Acts 15, and we see that it was authoritative for all the churches. Then throughout church history we see more councils called together, confirming for the true church such things as the canon of Scripture, the truth of the Trinity, etc., and by God's grace and according to his will they remain authoritative. Westminster was the last such called-together assembly. All of them provided for the church authoritative language and concepts so that the true visible church can hold her ground.

 

[Pomopu]

This is a false issue and dillema. No one who is in a confessional church has ever claimed the confession to be above the scriptures .To the extent the confession is used in argument, this is because of plain common sense. It is easier to reference LD 38 of the Heidelberg, than to re-hash that which is the Lord's Day based on these verses, etc. Now, engaging a non-believer? Point to scripture, for sure. But especially in a confessional community, it makes total and practical sense to use the existing documents that everyone has agreed states the scripture.

Without an objective set of documents to reference the 66 canonical books will be endlessly manipulated, abused, attacked, misunderstood, etc. So it is simply wisdom. But yeah; the very confessions themselves state that they are not endlessly authoritative, but have their authority from the Word, so the connection to the Papists way of doing things doesn't hold.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Your view of authority should allow for you to say that if someone cannot confess the apostles creed and Nicene creed (381) because of their ‘biblical’ convictions,’ they are not a Christian.

I would modify this statement to:

If someone cannot confess the apostles creed and Nicene creed (381) because of their biblical misinterpretations they are not a Christian. Because the Nicene creed aligns with scripture, and it's authority derived from scripture, so in rejecting the principles put forth in the creed, they reject the same principles that are put forth in scripture.

These all have authority because it has been granted so by God, and this is precisely why they are authorities.

But again, these authorities, as you have said, derive their authority from what God has said in scripture, Their authority is still the authority of scripture.

 

[Alive in Christ]

But again, these authorities, as you have said, derive their authority from what God has said in scripture, Their authority is still the authority of scripture.

That almost seems redundant. If our confessional standards are authoritative only inasmuch as they directly quote scripture, what is the use of having confessions at all?

There is scripture, and then there is interpretation of scripture. Before a person can put scripture into practice, one has to interpret it and deem that interpretation as being right and true. If the interpretive summation of scripture found in the historic reformed confessions cannot be cited and put into practice as an authority, then by what right can anyone interpret scripture and put it into practice?

 

[Knight]

Do I have the authority to tell my son when to go to bed? Yes. Does Scripture tell my son when to go to bed? No. Does Scripture give fathers authority over sons? Yes. Does that mean Scripture tells fathers what time sons must go to bed? No.

Similarly, your elders decide when you congregate for worship on Sunday. Some congregations meet at 9 A.M., 11 A.M., etc. Ought you obey you elders' decision? Yes. Does Scripture specify what time a congregation ought to meet? No.

Confessions don't even specify this. To say Scripture is the only authority is to fail to recognize that Scripture itself has given fathers the authority to make authoritative decisions that are themselves not specified in Scripture.

This is functionally equivalent to saying fathers are incapable of analogically acting wisely after our wise, heavenly Father.

 

[RamistThomist]

As I see it, the authority of church leaders, of the confessions, etc., is the authority of the bible, in that all their authority flows from scripture, and they have no extra-biblical authority.

The first part of your statement is word for word Roman Catholicism.

 

[paranymph]

If someone cannot confess the apostles creed and Nicene creed (381) because of their biblical misinterpretations they are not a Christian. Because the Nicene creed aligns with scripture, and it's authority derived from scripture, so in rejecting the principles put forth in the creed, they reject the same principles that are put forth in scripture.

I think we all get your point. But let's do a little experiment. A man named Arius comes to your Reformed Baptist church. He says he agrees to the Confession and becomes a member. But, in a discussion one day, he says that the Son of God was created at some point before the creation of the world. He references the many verses in Scripture that speak of the Son as "begotten." He really likes to go to Proverbs 8. Arius says these verses prove the Son was created.
Now, Pastor Atha Nasius sits down with him to explain why he's misinterpreting those verses. "Begotten" in those verses does not mean that the Son of God began existence at a certain point in time. Arius says, "Prove it to me from the Bible that's not what begotten means!" Pastor cannot show him a verse that says, "The Son of God was begotten, not made." Pastor shows him verses about Jesus being God, and therefore he must exist from eternity. But Arius says, "But these verses say he is begotten! That has to mean he was created! Who begot you? Your Father! Doesn't that mean you came into existence at some point!? Pastor, I totally agree Jesus is God. I just think he came into existence at some point. What's the big deal?!" And so they go in circles for hours. Arius says, "You're just using logic and man-made theology. Show me in the Bible!" So Nasius and Arius disagree over how to interpret the verses in question. Do you see the impasse? Arius is looking for a "chapter and verse" because he is unwilling to consider another interpretation.

In this case, is it appropriate for Pastor Atha Nasius to say, "Arius, you're misinterpreting the Bible. The church for centuries has interpreted these verses to mean that the Son is begotten but not made. You should really believe what the church believes. It really is biblical. And one big way we can have confidence it's biblical is that this is what the church has declared for centuries." ?

I hope you see the point of my scenario. I'd like to hear your response, based on the use of the creed for interpretation, not getting into the weeds about what "begotten" means.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

The first part of your statement is word for word Roman Catholicism.

I would have to doubt that. If it is, in context it probably is not.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would have to doubt that. If it is, in context it probably is not.

You placed church leaders on the authority level of the Bible. That is why we make the distinction between ministerial and magisterial authority

 

[Ben_Leevey]

I think we all get your point. But let's do a little experiment. A man named Arius comes to your Reformed Baptist church. He says he agrees to the Confession and becomes a member. But, in a discussion one day, he says that the Son of God was created at some point before the creation of the world. He references the many verses in Scripture that speak of the Son as "begotten." He really likes to go to Proverbs 8. Arius says these verses prove the Son was created.
Now, Pastor Atha Nasius sits down with him to explain why he's misinterpreting those verses. "Begotten" in those verses does not mean that the Son of God began existence at a certain point in time. Arius says, "Prove it to me from the Bible that's not what begotten means!" Pastor cannot show him a verse that says, "The Son of God was begotten, not made." Pastor shows him verses about Jesus being God, and therefore he must exist from eternity. But Arius says, "But these verses say he is begotten! That has to mean he was created! Who begot you? Your Father! Doesn't that mean you came into existence at some point!? Pastor, I totally agree Jesus is God. I just think he came into existence at some point. What's the big deal?!" And so they go in circles for hours. Arius says, "You're just using logic and man-made theology. Show me in the Bible!" So Nasius and Arius disagree over how to interpret the verses in question. Do you see the impasse? Arius is looking for a "chapter and verse" because he is unwilling to consider another interpretation.

In this case, is it appropriate for Pastor Atha Nasius to say, "Arius, you're misinterpreting the Bible. The church for centuries has interpreted these verses to mean that the Son is begotten but not made. You should really believe what the church believes. It really is biblical. And one big way we can have confidence it's biblical is that this is what the church has declared for centuries." ?

I hope you see the point of my scenario. I'd like to hear your response, based on the use of the creed for interpretation, not getting into the weeds about what "begotten" means.

I still myself would probably not go to a creed, but to the Greek itself, and the definition(s) of the original word.

You placed church leaders on the authority level of the Bible. That is why we make the distinction between ministerial and magisterial authority

I think you misunderstood the comment.

 

[Ploutos]

I still myself would probably not go to a creed, but to the Greek itself, and the definition(s) of the original word.

How do you determine the meaning of the word in context?

 

[paranymph]

I still myself would probably not go to a creed, but to the Greek itself, and the definition(s) of the original word.

I don't think that'll help you at all. Arius is a native Greek speaker! He'll tie you in Greek knots. And the word monogenes literally just means "only begotten." It's used of Isaac being Abraham's begotten son in Heb 11:17. But Arius is absolutely convinced this means the Son was the only begotten Son of the Father, meaning he came into existence at a certain point.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

I don't think that'll help you at all. Arius is a native Greek speaker! He'll tie you in Greek knots. And the word monogenes literally just means "only begotten." It's used of Isaac being Abraham's begotten son in Heb 11:17. But Arius is absolutely convinced this means the Son was the only begotten Son of the Father, meaning he came into existence at a certain point.

Personally brother, I would still feel compelled to find the answer within scripture.

 

[Knight]

Personally brother, I would still feel compelled to find the answer within scripture.

Would you look for an answer in Scripture regarding what specific time to tell your son to go to bed, when to do his homework, what chores to give him around your house, etc.?

 

[RamistThomist]

I think you misunderstood the comment.

I read your words the way they were written.

But we can say it another way: My theology is just what the bible teaches. Therefore, everyone should agree with me.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Would you look for an answer in Scripture regarding what specific time to tell your son to go to bed, when to do his homework, what chores to give him around your house, etc.?

No. That is left up to me by scripture.

I read your words the way they were written.

But we can say it another way: My theology is just what the bible teaches. Therefore, everyone should agree with me.

That is not what this post was made to discuss or assert.

 

[Michael1689]

I️ definitely get what you are saying brother. I️ have not run into too many people that reference creeds or confessions in such a manner, but I️ am sure that they are out there. Though I️ do think that for personal use and reference this happens often, in that people believe something because the confession says so. What I️ think the solution is, is that we study deeply these confessions and creeds alongside our Bible, and search the references to Scripture. As we do this, when someone asks us a question, the majority of the time our answer will be from the Scriptures because we have studied these things out deeply. While quoting creeds and confessions is just fine, I️ think referencing Scripture is ideal, and you can tell when someone is deeply immersed in Scripture, this will be there tendency. Something I️ certainly desire to grow in and make a theme in my life!

 

[Ben_Leevey]

I️ definitely get what you are saying brother. I️ have not run into too many people that reference creeds or confessions in such a manner, but I️ am sure that they are out there. Though I️ do think that for personal use and reference this happens often, in that people believe something because the confession says so. What I️ think the solution is, is that we study deeply these confessions and creeds alongside our Bible, and search the references to Scripture. As we do this, when someone asks us a question, the majority of the time our answer will be from the Scriptures because we have studied these things out deeply. While quoting creeds and confessions is just fine, I️ think referencing Scripture is ideal, and you can tell when someone is deeply immersed in Scripture, this will be there tendency. Something I️ certainly desire to grow in and make a theme in my life!

Amen! May the LORD help us to become saturated in His truth as expressed in scripture!

 

[Knight]

No. That is left up to me by scripture.

Do you have authority regarding what specific time to tell your son to go to bed, when to do his homework, what chores to give him around your house, etc.? That is, is your son obliged to obey you regarding these things?

If you say yes, then you've just admitted Scripture is not the only authority in your son's life.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Do you have authority regarding what specific time to tell your son to go to bed, when to do his homework, what chores to give him around your house, etc.? That is, is your son obliged to obey you regarding these things?

If you say yes, then you've just admitted Scripture is not the only authority in your son's life.

Actually, I have not, because Scripture gives me the authority over my hypothetical son, within the bounds of the principles set forth in scripture. So, scripture still is the only authority.