The Authority of Scripture

[Ben_Leevey]

Hello brethren. This post flows from a growing concern I have had, the more I poked my nose out into the wider reformed circles. My concern would be that I often see brethren (I'm not specifically referring to the Puritan Board, you do better than some!) quoting confessions and creeds, outside the cannon, to give authority to what they say.

My concern would be that these are the uninspired writings of men (albeit wise men). And there authority only exists in as much as they align with scripture.

This seems to be headed in a similar grain (though as yet, not nearly as problematic) as the Catholic church. Using things outside of scripture as if they had authority to define truth.

Now, let me clarify, I think confessions and creeds are good when they are used rightly. As a helpful framework, but not as an authority to prove that framework.

So I would mostly be asking for kind thoughts in opposition, or agreement brethren. I would like to discuss this and hopefully get my thinking on this more rounded.

Post Script: This is the best forum I could find. If I missed one that would be a better fit, please say so and I can mention it to the staff.

 

[MarrowMan]

Hello brethren. This post flows from a growing concern I have had, the more I poked my nose out into the wider reformed circles. My concern would be that I often see brethren (I'm not specifically referring to the Puritan Board, you do better than some!) quoting confessions and creeds, outside the cannon, to give authority to what they say.

My concern would be that these are the uninspired writings of men (albeit wise men). And there authority only exists in as much as they align with scripture.

This seems to be headed in a similar grain (though as yet, not nearly as problematic) as the Catholic church. Using things outside of scripture as if they had authority to define truth.

Now, let me clarify, I think confessions and creeds are good when they are used rightly. As a helpful framework, but not as an authority to prove that framework.

So I would mostly be asking for kind thoughts in opposition, or agreement brethren. I would like to discuss this and hopefully get my thinking on this more rounded.

Post Script: This is the best forum I could find. If I missed one that would be a better fit, please say so and I can mention it to the staff.

Creeds and Confessions are condensed formulations of what Scripture teaches. The reason that we quote them is because we believe them to be faithful distillations of Scripture in the areas that they address. They are a touchstone for Biblical doctrine that prevent us from constantly having to rehash everything and they provide a starting point for discussion based upon the historical witness of the Church.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Creeds and Confessions are condensed formulations of what Scripture teaches. The reason that we quote them is because we believe them to be faithful distillations of Scripture in the areas that they address. They are a touchstone for Biblical doctrine that prevent us from constantly having to rehash everything and they provide a starting point for discussion based upon the historical witness of the Church.

What you have said as far as I understand it is true brother! But what are your thoughts on the way we use it, to prove what we say?

 

[MarrowMan]

What you have said as far as I understand it is true brother! But what are your thoughts on the way we use it, to prove what we say?

If someone uses them as a stand alone argument apart from Scripture, that's problematic. Providentially, I don't find that people in my circles use the Confession as stand alone. That said, given we use them as distillations of Biblical doctrine, pointing to them is entirely appropriate in bodies that hold to the Creeds and Confessions as those distillations. It is saying "this is what we confess to be the truth of Scripture."

 

[Ben_Leevey]

If someone uses them as a stand alone argument apart from Scripture, that's problematic. Providentially, I don't find that people in my circles use the Confession as stand alone.

A little bit of tongue in cheek.

I would say brother that using them as an argument at all is really invalid. They are uninspired. Now, saying something like "The 2nd London Baptist confession references these scriptures on this topic, what would you say in regard to these scriptures it references?" is great! But, quoting the confession to prove a viewpoint... is this okay? When we quote something to prove truth, we quote it because we see that it has authority to define truth.

 

[No Other Name]

A little bit of tongue in cheek.

I would say brother that using them as an argument at all is really invalid. They are uninspired. Now, saying something like "The 2nd London Baptist confession references these scriptures on this topic, what would you say in regard to these scriptures it references?" is great! But, quoting the confession to prove a viewpoint... is this okay?

But since your entire post here is not inspired nor included in Scripture as you apply these words to this argument, doesn't this also invalidate your post based on the same logic? Is this post itself not self-contradictory?

 

[Ben_Leevey]

But since your entire post here is not inspired nor included in Scripture as you apply these words to this argument, doesn't this also invalidate your post based on the same logic? Is this post itself not self-contradictory?

I'm not quoting my post to back up my points. I am not working off of it as my authority. I am not saying we don't state truth in our own words.

 

[MarrowMan]

A little bit of tongue in cheek.

I would say brother that using them as an argument at all is really invalid. They are uninspired. Now, saying something like "The 2nd London Baptist confession references these scriptures on this topic, what would you say in regard to these scriptures it references?" is great! But, quoting the confession to prove a viewpoint... is this okay? When we quote something to prove truth, we quote it because we see that it has authority to define truth.

There's nothing invalid about using them as an argument. I'd wager you won't find many people who, when discussing particular truths, won't engage in exegesis of Scripture to establish the truth of the particular Confession they hold to. They are a starting point in the discussion. If someone asks me what I believe concerning X, I will point them to the WCF. If they want to engage in a discussion of the Biblical support concerning a confessional statement, I'm happy to engage.

 

[paranymph]

The first chapter of 2LCF/WCF states that Scripture is the Supreme Judge over Confessions. So those who quote these Confessions are doing so because they believe these statements fall under the authority of Scripture and have been validated by Scripture. It's a given.

The issue is "whose interpretation of Scripture?" I don't think the Confessions are above Scripture, but they are above me. I look to them for guidance on interpretation. Why would I think that I'm smarter than these great men who have passed down a deposit of faith that has lasted hundreds of years? Of course, I look to Scripture as my final authority, and that's why I've adopted the 2LCF and not the Augsburg Confession. But, when I adopt a Confession as mine, because I see it lining up with Scripture, I then seek to be guided by its interpretations. Much danger has resulted from doing otherwise.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

I'd wager you won't find many people who, when discussing particular truths, won't engage in exegesis of Scripture to establish the truth of the particular Confession they hold to

I would agree with everything said in this post brother, except the above quote. I have (mostly in other spaces) asked a reformed brother to back up his statements with scripture as we discussed, and though these brethren did not outright say "No" they did not move to scripture. They argued that the confession was sufficient to prove what they said.

 

[No Other Name]

I am not saying we don't state truth in our own words.

Excellent!

EDIT: The previous equation of the best statement of the truth of Scripture being in the confession was already answered by @pastorgrumbles and very well.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

The first chapter of 2LCF/WCF states that Scripture is the Supreme Judge over Confessions. So those who quote these Confessions are doing so because they believe these statements fall under the authority of Scripture and have been validated by Scripture. It's a given.

The issue is "whose interpretation of Scripture?" I don't think the Confessions are above Scripture, but they are above me. I look to them for guidance on interpretation. Why would I think that I'm smarter than these great men who have passed down a deposit of faith that has lasted hundreds of years? Of course, I look to Scripture as my final authority, and that's why I've adopted the 2LCF and not the Augsburg Confession. But, when I adopt a Confession as mine, because I see it lining up with Scripture, I then seek to be guided by its interpretations. Much danger has resulted from doing otherwise.

Agreed brother! I hold mostly to the 1689. My thoughts are regarding using the confessions to prove something is truth.

 

[MarrowMan]

I would agree with everything said in this post brother, except the above quote. I have (mostly in other spaces) asked a reformed brother to back up his statements with scripture as we discussed, and though these brethren did not outright say "No" they did not move to scripture. They argued that the confession was sufficient to prove what they said.

I didn't say nobody would stop at the Confessions. I said you won't find many. Do you find it to be a common thing for people not to point you to the Scriptural support behind confessional statements? Personally, I let the Confession do the heavy lifting as the testimony of the Church, but I don't refuse to discuss Scripture.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Excellent!

EDIT: The previous equation of the best statement of the truth of Scripture being in the confession was already answered by @pastorgrumbles and very well.

Again brother I am speaking of using confessions for proof.

 

[Ploutos]

Not only is it permissible to use confessions and creeds as proof, but one should do so. There are two types of people in the world: people who know they have a confession, and know what it is... and people who are lying to themselves.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Not only is it permissible to use confessions and creeds as proof, but one should do so. There are two types of people in the world: people who know they have a confession, and know what it is... and people who are lying to themselves.

Thank you for your feedback brother! Actually, there are two types of folks on earth, those in the first Adam, and those in the Second Adam. But that has nothing to do with their views on confessions and creeds. I do hold to the 1689 LBC.

The primary point I would disagree with in what you said is: "Not only is it permissible to use confessions and creeds as proof, but one should do so."
Why would you say this?

 

[Jake]

If I know somebody has made a vow to a confession (especially as in my church it is as a confession of "your own faith"), I'm happy to quote it as a summary of what he believes. Just the other day I was interacting with an ordained Reformed Baptist elder and I referenced the LBCF to prove a doctrine even though I do not wholly agree with that Confession.

 

[jwright82]

Again brother I am speaking of using confessions for proof.

Yeah I don't really know who does that. I mean if someone asks why does your Church believe such and such than it seems appropriate to quote the confession of faith.
I think this is an American, at least, thing. A kind of sola scriptura vs solo scriptura thing, that was never a problem for confessional churches.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

If I know somebody has made a vow to a confession (especially as in my church it is as a confession of "your own faith"), I'm happy to quote it as a summary of what he believes. Just the other day I was interacting with an ordained Reformed Baptist elder and I referenced the LBCF to prove a doctrine even though I do not wholly agree with that Confession.

Yes! Referencing a confession to explain what one believes is good to my understanding! My problem is using it as a standard by which to prove truth.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The Confessions are approved statements of what those holding them believe. No one, not anyone credible at least, who believes in confessions of faith rests on them as proof of the positions as bible truth; they are statements or professions of what is believed to be truth from Scripture. When they are taught, the teachers go to the Scriptures to show the proof for various confessional statements. When truth is professed, such as examination for ordination, confessions are used, much like the so called Apostles Creed. Or like here on the PB, when folks submit membership applications they are required to hold to one of the Reformed Confessions given in the rules as a statement of what they believe is true, or hold a minimum level of knowledge to be able to say what in them they do not believe.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Yeah I don't really know who does that. I mean if someone asks why does your Church believe such and such than it seems appropriate to quote the confession of faith.
I think this is an American, at least, thing. A kind of sola scriptura vs solo scriptura thing, that was never a problem for confessional churches.

I've run into several. I hope it's not in these circles too much though. But several in this thread have said they do quote a confession as proof.

Certainly, identifying where you're at with a confession is just fine!

The Confessions are approved statements of what those holding them believe. No one, not anyone credible at least, who believes in confessions of faith rests on them as proof of the positions as bible truth; they are statements or professions of what is believed to be truth from Scripture. When they are taught, the teachers go to the Scriptures to show the proof for various confessional statements. When truth is professed, such as examination for ordination, confessions are used, much like the so called Apostles Creed. Or like here on the PB, when folks submit membership applications they are required to hold to one of the Reformed Confessions given in the rules as a statement of what they believe is true, or hold a minimum level of knowledge to be able to say what in them they do not believe.

Yes! All this is fine to my understanding brother!

 

[paranymph]

Basically, the Confessions are shorthand. They come with lots of biblical citations. The purpose of quoting a Confession, rather than Scripture, is to summarize what we think Scripture teaches and to point someone towards the biblical texts used. However, there is enormous background and exegesis as to how and why those texts are cited. They often don't make sense initially. That's why it's easier/faster to just use the shorthand. But, depending on the context, there might be more time to go through the Scriptures and why they are being interpreted that way.

 

[No Other Name]

I have (mostly in other spaces) asked a reformed brother to back up his statements with scripture as we discussed, and though these brethren did not outright say "No" they did not move to scripture. They argued that the confession was sufficient to prove what they said.

It would probably be helpful if the original example were provided in detail so that you are not speaking to a problem in a vacuum without an exhibit of evidence for your concern?

 

[jwright82]

I've run into several. I hope it's not in these circles too much though. But several in this thread have said they do quote a confession as proof.

Certainly, identifying where you're at with a confession is just fine!


Yes! All this is fine to my understanding brother!

As someone else put it, everyone has a confession of faith the difference is one is a private confession ethe other is a corporate confession of faith by a church. The practical benefits are to regulate what our officers believe to be what Scripture teaches. The other is more autonomous in nature of the individual.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Another thing to consider is that very often, discussions or talks wherein the confession of faith is quoted are in-house conversations- that is, brethren are speaking to one another with an assumption that the one(s) they’re speaking to hold to a common confessional position *based on* what the Scriptures teach. To someone not used to this it can seem as though a CoF is being elevated above Scripture, when it’s really just in-house short-hand speech where everyone knows the supporting Scriptures to be the underlying truths.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Basically, the Confessions are shorthand. They come with lots of biblical citations. The purpose of quoting a Confession, rather than Scripture, is to summarize what we think Scripture teaches and to point someone towards the biblical texts used. However, there is enormous background and exegesis as to how and why those texts are cited. They often don't make sense initially. That's why it's easier/faster to just use the shorthand. But, depending on the context, there might be more time to go through the Scriptures and why they are being interpreted that way.

Yes brother! I would agree, the confessions are good shorthand. But the fact is, we can't prove anything with them validly. Only the scriptures have authority. So, I guess I would be saying "Shouldn't we qoute scripture when trying to prove a point, not the confessions?"

As someone else put it, everyone has a confession of faith the difference is one is a private confession ethe other is a corporate confession of faith by a church. The practical benefits are to regulate what our officers believe to be what Scripture teaches. The other is more autonomous in nature of the individual.

Totally agree!

Another thing to consider is that very often, discussions or talks wherein the confession of faith is quoted are in-house conversations- that is, brethren are speaking to one another with an assumption that the one(s) they’re speaking to hold to a common confessional position *based on* what the Scriptures teach. To someone not used to this it can seem as though a CoF is being elevated above Scripture, when it’s really just in-house short-hand speech where everyone knows the supporting Scriptures to be the underlying truths.

That is a very good point sister! I'll have to chew on that.

 

[paranymph]

But the fact is, we can't prove anything with them validly. Only the scriptures have authority. So, I guess I would be saying "Shouldn't we qoute scripture when trying to prove a point, not the confessions?"

If I were to "just quote Scripture" people would argue with my interpretations of Scripture. When I quote the Confession (which cites Scripture), I am aligning my interpretations of those Scriptures with how someone has already articulated those interpretations. . . interpretations which, by the way, have stood the test of time.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

If I were to "just quote Scripture" people would argue with my interpretations of Scripture. When I quote the Confession (which cites Scripture), I am aligning my interpretations of those Scriptures with how someone has already articulated those interpretations. . . interpretations which, by the way, have stood the test of time.

Have stood the test of time, but are by no means infallible.

As far as someone arguing with you interpretation brother, that language really scares me for the following reason:

I live in San Antonio, TX which has a very high catholic population because of the many folks coming up across the border over the generations.

I go door to door on Sunday afternoons with another brother. One of these afternoons I entered into conversation with a well educated Catholic. As usual with those holding to the Catholic heresies, his issue was one of authority. Several times he stated that he didn't really want to argue from the scriptures because it would be a matter of our conflicting interpretations. So he used the church fathers.

Brother, I don't think we can ever fall back on the different interpretations argument. The scriptures where written for us to understand by the power of the spirit, and if a brother is truly open, we should be able to dialog and reach a conclusion in most cases.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Have stood the test of time, but are by no means infallible.

As far as someone arguing with you interpretation brother, that language really scares me for the following reason:

I live in San Antonio, TX which has a very high catholic population because of the many folks coming up across the border over the generations.

I go door to door on Sunday afternoons with another brother. One of these afternoons I entered into conversation with a well educated Catholic. As usual with those holding to the Catholic heresies, his issue was one of authority. Several times he stated that he didn't really want to argue from the scriptures because it would be a matter of our conflicting interpretations. So he used the church fathers.

Brother, I don't think we can ever fall back on the different interpretations argument. The scriptures where written for us to understand by the power of the spirit, and if a brother is truly open, we should be able to dialog and reach a conclusion in most cases.

It will be good to slow down before posting and realize that Puritanboard IS an in-house dialogue. Many of your posts are arguing against something that’s not being said.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

It will be good to slow down before posting and realize that Puritanboard IS an in-house dialogue. Many of your posts are arguing against something that’s not being said.

Sister, it seems to me the principle of authority holds weight inside and outside the church though. I'm sure the catholic church did not slip away in a day, and the decay started from within.

I'm not saying that this is primarily a problem in evangelism. I doubt it is. I speak of inside the church.