Why Be Confessional?

[JM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D313CffJm_k

What I've been trying to say for a while now...

 

[abacabb3]

What struck me personally is when he says, "This is the 'me generation.' It's all about what I post on my blog, the internet, or whatever..."

I'm relatively young in the faith (I have only been a Christian between 6 or 7 years) and so even still, to this very day, I have issues subordinating my own opinions to church tradition and those authorities I am under (i.e. the elders in my church). My sinful temperament is that the truth is fluid, so I'll argue with you my position until I am proved wrong, when I will then adopt the new position.

What has really begun changing for me was doing my Commentary on Job, learning from James White, and really reflecting on my very short stint at Puritan Boards. Owning a repair shop for 4 years really exhausted my mind to the point it stunted my ability and opportunity to learn these things. However, I can see unless I was humbled by the experience, I would have never devoted the time to study and reflection that I do now.

More specific as it pertains to Confessions, I am becoming much more respectful of them now. The reason is, I am convinced that the when the Scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, this means that it is arrogant to believe that there are new truths now that no one figured out for 2,000 years of Church History. So, while I continue to use my mind, my jury is the testimony of Church Tradition.

I think if I understood this as well a couple months ago as I do now, I probably would have not been banned from Puritan Boards where I asked to move beyond the confessions in a conversation there. I would still maintain that nothing I wrote contradicted the LBC, nor did my temperament justify the banning, but I should have spoken more carefully concerning Confessions and their role in the Church. I think more informed Christians would thereby respect the Confessions. I simply was not informed enough.

 

[JM]

I pray the church would boldly confess to the world the faith once delivered to the saints. Of course, this would mean we abandon their Cartesian or “Modern” presuppositions by acknowledge the historicity of the church and the authority of the Bible and in this culture, standing for anything means being a little uncomfortable. I think that’s what aba is saying, essentially, we assume a hyposthesis based on our own rationally gained knowledge and set forth to try this experiment. We ignore the witness and work of the church in pervious generations because, after all, we must prove it for ourselves.

Instead of a minimalistic Gospel with few (published or confessed) doctrines, as a church, we should stand against the relativism of the world by proclaiming the Gospel doctrinally. Dr. James White has stated many times and I believe it is true, “What you win them with is what you win them to.” If you win a people to a minimalistic Gospel you soon find minimalistic Christians who can neither articulate the faith nor defend it. They cannot even think like Christians (biblically) because they have been taught to accept only a few doctrinal truths opening the doors to all kinds of false teaching. Paul tells us that doctrine is divisive and it should be. Let us confess our doctrine together for the glory of God in Christ Jesus.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

A few quotes from Trueman’s The Creedal Imperative posted on PB.

“The pastor who thinks he is being biblical by declaring he has no creed but the Bible may actually, upon reflection, find that his position is more shaped by the modern world than he at first realized.”

“It would be a tragic irony if the rejection of creeds and confessions by so many of those who sincerely wish to be biblically faithful turned out to be not an act of faithfulness but rather an unwitting capitulation to the spirit of the age.”

“All Christians engage in confessional synthesis; the difference is simply whether one adheres to a public confession, subject to public scrutiny, or to a private confession that is, by its very nature, immune to such examination.”

“I do want to make the point here that Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and, crucially and ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true.”

“Creeds and confessions are, in fact, necessary for the well-being of the church, and that churches that claim not to have them place themselves at a permanent disadvantage when it comes to holding fast to that form of sound words which was so precious to the aging Paul as he advised his young protégé, Timothy. . . The need for creeds and confessions is not just a practical imperative for the church but is also a biblical imperative.”

“The fact that I am a confessional Christian places me at odds with the vast majority of evangelical Christians today.”

“Those of us in the West have been taught to believe so deeply in the authority and autonomy of the individual that subjecting our own thoughts to external authorities, especially corporate or historic, is very counterintuitive. Combined with a desire for instant gratification, many of us are inclined to believe that if something does not make sense the first time we look at it, it—and not we—must be wrong.”

“A church with a creed or confession has a built-in gospel reality check. It is unlikely to become sidetracked by the peripheral issues of the passing moment; rather it will focus instead on the great theological categories that touch on matters of eternal significance.”

In the same thread a brother posted a quote found in Sam Waldron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith from Horatius Bonar,

“Every new utterance of skepticism, especially on religious subjects, and by so-called “religious” men, is cheered as another howl of that storm that is to send all creeds to the bottom of the sea; the flowing or receding tide is watched, not for the appearance of truth above the waters, but for the submergence of dogma. To any book or doctrine or creed that leaves men at liberty to worship what god they please, there is no objection; but to anything that would fix their relationship to God, that would infer their responsibility for their faith, that would imply that God has made an authoritative announcement as to what they are to believe, they object, with protestations in the name of injured liberty”

 

[abacabb3]

I don't think conservative Reformed circles have such issues preaching the Gospel. The liberal wing may be minimizing the Gospel, shedding of the way Christians have always understood Scripture as authoritative and the like.

I have honestly hit the point that all I can say is the truth. It does not matter how good I say it. I mean, I want to sound intelligent and all, but people cannot hear nor understand apart from the grace of God. So, I do not shy away from saying the Scripture is my authority and what the Scripture itself says.

However, as I think the video alludes to, that's not enough. We need to inform our own reading of the Scripture with that of the historic witness of the Church. To not do so is to doubt the Scripture where God promises that He will lead us into all truth.

 

[JM]

The Fundamentalist and Conservative Christian makes the same mistake the Liberal makes in denying creeds and confessions. It’s not whether someone is liberal or conservative but confessional. I think we get catch up in trying to label things like gun control and public welfare as Right verse Left or conservative vs. liberal. What does the Bible tell us about societal issues? What has the Gospel preaching church taught concerning our current troubles? The dividing line (to borrow from White’s ministry) is biblically confessed Christianity verses the world and not left vs. right.

IMO.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[abacabb3]

My point more so was that only conservative Christians seriously subscribe to creeds, while liberals do not believe in the authority of Scripture, let alone creeds.

Those Christians who feel so Spirit led that they do no ascribe to creeds, yet they ascribe to the authority of Scripture, ultimately are not conservatives because they do not conserve tradition. They are in effect moderates.

 

[twin1954]

I have no problem that there are confessions I have a problem with the confession becoming the authority. I have a problem when men quote the confession instead of the Scriptures. I have a problem with those who preach the confession instead of the Scriptures.

Yes the confessions codify what has been believed over the course of history but they can never bind us. We are bound by the Scriptures.

 

[BryanW92]

I have no problem that there are confessions I have a problem with the confession becoming the authority. I have a problem when men quote the confession instead of the Scriptures. I have a problem with those who preach the confession instead of the Scriptures.

Yes the confessions codify what has been believed over the course of history but they can never bind us. We are bound by the Scriptures.

My copy of the WCF is a nicely bound book where the confessions and catechisms fill less than 20% of each page. The rest of each page is filled with the scriptural support for each phrase. If I quote the confession, be sure that I read those verses listed below and I probably read the surrounding verses as well to check context. They aren't an authority, but they are a concise way to focus what you believe.

 

[abacabb3]

I have no problem that there are confessions I have a problem with the confession becoming the authority. I have a problem when men quote the confession instead of the Scriptures.

That's an issue I recently ran into, where men were unwilling to actually argue from the Scripture and instead pointed to the Confession (inaccurately may I add). What it comes down to is none of us are too good to misapply the Scripture, Confession, Church Tradition, and many other important authorities towards the wrong end, given our own ignorance and hardness of heart.

I think what JM is speaking to, however, is that Protestants should not be denominations of one man only, each man having his own set of doctrines that just so happen to agree with someone else's. We need to accede to the understanding of the Church over time. Hence, we must with great pains differ when we find that our own personal understandings are at odds with a historical one. Only if the issue is a matter of the Gospel itself would I say we should not submit to the understanding of authorities.

 

[JM]

I have no problem that there are confessions I have a problem with the confession becoming the authority. I have a problem when men quote the confession instead of the Scriptures. I have a problem with those who preach the confession instead of the Scriptures.

Yes the confessions codify what has been believed over the course of history but they can never bind us. We are bound by the Scriptures.

I get it brother and understand your view. You still hold to a confession but it is a private confession, one that you share in your own words rather than one united voice within a historical context and local assembly. Anything can become an idol, be it a confession of faith or our own families, but that doesn’t mean we do away with them. Just because something can be abused does not mean it is useless.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[abacabb3]

Here's some questions: WHose confession? Do we get to go shopping in the mall and pick up the one we like in our 20s, and switch to another one in our 30s?

If we style ourselves doctors of the church, can everyone in this thread devise their own confession by mutual consent?

 

[JM]

I can only describe my journey to confessionalism.

When I first became a Christian it was God working through my reading of the Gospels and Romans. I left the Anglican church I was attending and tried to find a church with the “correct” tradition spending a short time in the Roman church and about 2 years in the Eastern Orthodox church. The one driving presupposition was God’s sovereignty in all things. Paul’s teaching on the sinfulness and powerlessness of mankind to effect or assist in their salvation was pressed upon my mind and heart. Once I realized that “tradition” was a tangled mess of human traditions with biblical doctrine I had to find a church that preached the Gospel. That lead me to read the historic confessions of faith, Protestant and Traditionalist, and found that I had a lot in common with Particular Baptists. Not only was I able to identify with 17th century Particular Baptist doctrine I was able to identify with their experimental or experiential writings as well.

The 1689 is a very detailed confession and at first I could only subscribe to a few chapters but as time passed, as I continued to pray, read and study scripture I found the Reformed confessions true! The Gospel preaching church, the church that rightly practices the ordinances of God, had done most of the heavily lifting for me but due to my own pride I would not subscribe to the 1689. At this point in my Christian walk if someone asks if I’m a 1689r I say yes without hesitation. The 1689 is not in any means a reductionist presentation of the Gospel and therefore, I feel comfortable with saying this confession is the least we should confess as Christians. I still have some differing opinions on Justification from Eternity and the Lord’s Day as a Sabbath but I believe my opinions are not so important after all.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[abacabb3]

I am not as well versed in the LBC as I should be. Is the Lord's Day treated as the Sabbath?

 

[JM]

I am not as well versed in the LBC as I should be. Is the Lord's Day treated as the Sabbath?

Yes, all Reformed confessions consider the Lord's Day the Sabbath, but since I agree that the local church/congregation has the authority to call believers together for worship…it’s not a deal breaker. Besides, I attend a very unconfessional, anti-Reformed church. Only a few fellas lean toward Reformed/Calvinism/Covenant theology.

Recently they asked if I would consider playing banjo during the offering. I didn’t even know how to begin explaining the Regulative Principle so I just declined. I hope to get around to explain that one another time.

jm

 

[JM]

If you're interested in learning more about the Reformed confessions try here: Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF

 

[abacabb3]

I'll check that out as soon as I am done reading the end of the Augustine book I am in the middle of.

 

[JM]

Confessionalism | The Confessing Baptist

 

[abacabb3]

Through chapter 10 in LBC

Chapter 3:1
"God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein"

How about God and Satan in Job? What does fellowship mean in this context?

What does Chapter 3:2 even mean?

 

[JM]

Excellent questions. The work that went into writing the confession and the work that followed are essential to understanding how Baptists arrived at their conclusions. For example, somehow the Baptists of the 1800’s forgot that covenant theology lead them to baptized confessors only, this ignorance allowed for Dispensationalism to inundate the church. Now that Baptists are beginning to understand the use and role of confessions in church life we are now recovering our covenantal heritage.

I’ll try to answer…

Through chapter 10 in LBC

Chapter 3:1

"God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein"

God is not guilty of committing sin or causing sin. The rest of this answer will be given below.

How about God and Satan in Job? What does fellowship mean in this context?

What does Chapter 3:2 even mean?

God decrees all that comes to pass, even sin, from a perspective of moral goodness. The best biblical description of this is found in Genesis 50. Everything that happened to Joseph (a type of Christ) was decreed by God including the sinful actions of his brothers. The biblical account reads, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” In this verse we see the events having two purposes; man was sinful but “God meant it unto good.” The human action was evil but God’s part in it was not. Why? “to save much people alive.” Consider this in light of the work of Christ.

Zanchius writing before the WCF and LBC were penned explains:

"God, as the primary and efficient cause of all things, is not only the Author of those actions done by His elect as actions, but also as they are good actions, whereas, on the other hand, though He may be said to be the Author of all the actions done by the wicked, yet He is not the Author of them in a moral and compound sense as they are sinful; but physically, simply and sensu diviso as they are mere actions, abstractedly from all consideration of the goodness or badness of them.

Although there is no action whatever which is not in some sense either good or bad, yet we can easily conceive of an action, purely as such, without adverting to the quality of it, so that the distinction between an action itself and its denomination of good or evil is very obvious and natural.

In and by the elect, therefore, God not only produces works and actions through His almighty power, but likewise, through the salutary influences of His Spirit, first makes their persons good, and then their actions so too; but, in and by the reprobate, He produces actions by His power alone, which actions, as neither issuing from faith nor being wrought with a view to the Divine glory, nor done in the manner prescribed by the Divine Word, are, on these accounts, properly denominated evil. Hence we see that God does not, immediately and per se, infuse iniquity into the wicked; but, as Luther expresses it, powerfully excites them to action, and withholds those gracious influences of His Spirit, without which every action is necessarily evil. That God either directly or remotely excites bad men as well as good ones to action cannot be denied by any but Atheists, or by those who carry their notions of free-will and human independency so high as to exclude the Deity from all actual operation in and among His creatures, which is little short of Atheism. Every work performed, whether good or evil, is done in strength and by the power derived immediately from God Himself, “in whom all men live, move, and have their being” (Acts 17.28). As, at first, without Him was not anything made which was made, so, now, without Him is not anything done which is done. We have no power or faculty, whether corporal or intellectual, but what we received from God, subsists by Him, and is exercised in subserviency to His will and appointment. It is He who created, preserves, actuates and directs all things. But it by no means follows, from these premises, that God is therefore the cause of sin, for sin is nothing but auomia, illegality, want of conformity to the Divine law (1 John 3.4), a mere privation of rectitude; consequently, being itself a thing purely negative, it can have no positive or efficient cause, but only a negative and deficient one. (end of quote one)

And:

“That God often lets the wicked go on to more ungodliness, which He does (a) negatively by withholding that grace which alone can restrain them from evil; (b) remotely, by the providential concourse and mediation of second causes, which second causes, meeting and acting in concert with the corruption of the reprobate’s unregenerate nature, produce sinful effects; (c) judicially, or in a way of judgment. “The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of waters; He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Prov. 21.1); and if the King’s heart, why not the hearts of all men? “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lam. 3.38). Hence we find that the Lord bid Shimei curse David (2 Sam. 16.10); that He moved David himself to number the people (compare 1 Chron. 21.1 with 2 Sam. 24.1); stirred up Joseph’s brethren to sell him into Egypt (Genesis 50.20); positively and immediately hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Exod. 4.21); delivered up David’s wives to be defiled by Absalom (2 Sam. 12.11; 16.22); sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab (1 Kings 22.20-23), and mingled a perverse spirit in the midst of Egypt, that is, made that nation perverse, obdurate and stiff-necked (Isa. 19.14). To cite other instances would be almost endless, and after these, quite unnecessary, all being summed up in that express passage, “I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things” (Isa. 45.7). See farther, 1 Sam. 16.14; Psalm 105.25; Jer. 13.12,13; Acts 2.23, & 4.28; Rom. 11.8; 2 Thess. 2.11, every one of which implies more than a bare permission of sin. Bucer asserts this, not only in the place referred to below, but continually throughout his works, particularly on Matt. 6. § 2, where this is the sense of his comments on that petition, “Lead us not into temptation”: “It is abundantly evident, from most express testimonies of Scripture, that God, occasionally in the course of His providence, puts both elect and reprobate persons into circumstances of temptation, by which temptation are meant not only those trials that are of an outward, afflictive nature, but those also that are inward and spiritual, even such as shall cause the persons so tempted actually to turn aside from the path of duty, to commit sin, and involve both themselves and others in evil. Hence we find the elect complaining, ‘O Lord, why hast Thou made us to err from Thy ways, and hardened our hearts from Thy fear?’ (Isaiah 63.17). But there is also a kind of temptation, which is peculiar to the non-elect, whereby God, in a way of just judgment, makes them totally blind and obdurate, inasmuch as they are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (See also his exposition of Rom. 9.) (end of quote two)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7810672/

Hope that helps. I’m at work and answered on break.

Yours in the Lord,

jm