Why Be Confessional?

[JM]

"That the book called the Bible is given by the inspiration of God, and is the only rule of Christian faith and practice. The consequence is, that we have no creeds, nor catechisms, nor decretals, which bind us by their authority. We think a creed worth nothing, unless it is supported by Scriptural authority, and if the creed is founded on the word of God, we do not see why we should not rest on that word which props up the creed; we prefer to go back directly to the foundation itself and rest there alone. If it is able to sustain us, we need nothing else, and if it is not, then we cannot rest upon a creed to support us when that creed has no support for itself." Thomas Armitage (Baptist)

Tom Nettles clears up the mess about Baptists and Confessions of Faith:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/c...-for-bible-believing-baptists-by-tom-nettles/

 

[BryanW92]

Having been Methodist and Presbyterian, I can say that two people can take the same authoritative scripture and believe it means two very different things. In the UMC, a conservative Methodist and a Progressive Methodist can take the very same authoritative scripture and believe it means two different things. In America , the most common Christian teaching seems to be "have it your way" and that's exactly what we tend to do.

 

[JM]

"have it your way"

Reminded me of an old video I put together...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJpdYgOglCo&list=UUdDK-r9YRKXPPmwYNAz5xOA

 

[JM]

Check out the sermon contra confessionalism here:

Monday, Jul 14, 2014
Church History, Part 2

Speaker: Jon Anderson
Category: Men's Leadership
Series: Church History (Men's Leadership)

Media :: Grace Immanuel Bible Church

Start at the 40 min. mark. Is he making any knew arguments or just the say old arguments?

Thanks,

jm

 

[JM]

"In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of Tradition 0 that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (Tradition 1). This new doctrine, which may be termed "solo" Scriptura instead of sola Scriptura, attacks the rightful subordinate authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church. Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin." Modern Reformation - Articles

 

[JM]

What a difference a vowel makes:

Modern Reformation - Articles

Thanks AMR. I didn't realize you already posted a link to this article. When I clicked on your link my browser gave off a warning for suspicious content! Obviously my browser is a modern, unconfessional, evangelical.

:o

 

[AMR]

Thanks AMR. I didn't realize you already posted a link to this article. When I clicked on your link my browser gave off a warning for suspicious content! Obviously my browser is a modern, unconfessional, evangelical.

:o

I guess we are in the same boat. I get the same response when clicking the link in your post above.

 

[JM]

The link seems to be working without the warning now. Weird.

 

[AMR]

The link seems to be working without the warning now. Weird.

For some reason my Avast antivirus software keeps blocking the link as a virus infected site. I cannot access anything at ModernReformation. Weird indeed.

 

[abacabb3]

From my Pastor:

I utilize the confessions and find great profit in them, but I sense no obligation to commit myself without reservation to any man-made confession. This is why, instead of officially adhering to the LBC of 1644 or 1689 or any other detailed confession, we have a rather general, (though much more specific than most) doctrinal statement.

What I find interesting is that most confessional fellowships, in practice, agree with me. For instance, if a man is seeking ordination in the PCA, during the ordination process he is free to state points of exception in regard to the Westminster Confession and still be ordained. So not even pastors in confessional groups have to adhere to every jot and tittle of their confessions.

This has, of course, opened me up to charges of not being Truly Reformed by some of my capital "R" Reformed Baptist brethren, but I can live with that. My concern is faithfulness to my Lord and His Word, not loyalty to any particular group, other than His church.

I think this sounds like a reasonable position.

 

[AMR]

It is reasonable as to relates to exceptions taken to Confessional bases of the church. The local session, presbytery, etc., still uses the Confession as a "litmus test" of unity of faith and allows exceptions wherein they have been so decided in agreement.

As soon as someone states "no obligation to commit myself without reservation to any man-made confession" they have in fact affirmed a confessional statement, to the contrary of their assertion. As I have noted in previous posts, ordained servants are (or should be) held to a higher standard of confessionalism.

The matter at hand for the church member or those seeking to covenant their membership with a local church is to examine the statement of faith and/or confessional basis of the church and come to a decision.

 

[abacabb3]

I suppose the issue would be over when one Confession conflicts with another. I think our church takes issue with the idea that the Sabbath remains a Christian obligation, as that would obviously contradict Scripture and reformed thinkers like Calvin.

 

[AMR]

I suppose the issue would be over when one Confession conflicts with another. I think our church takes issue with the idea that the Sabbath remains a Christian obligation, as that would obviously contradict Scripture and reformed thinkers like Calvin.

Keeping the Sabbath is an issue with many church groups. Tossing out that Calvin has a different view ignores his own Catechism and only serves those that want to do their own thing on the Sabbath. See Calvin's Catechism, questions 166-179.

See also: Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? by Chris Coldwell

 

[abacabb3]

We had someone here quote the Second Helvetic COnfession, which was against the Sabbath. Ignatius was against it. Paul in Colossians was against it. So, you are essentially setting aside one COnfession as inerrant and judging all other COnfessions and the Scripture by it. It does not mean you are wrong, but you would essentially be saying that Ignatius, the Swiss reformed thinkers, and etcetera are all wrong. You would have to argue that they were on the basis of the Scriptures, and not specifically your COnfession.

It appears to me the accusation against my Pastor is, "You're not Confessional enough!" instead of "You ar enot Biblical enough!" We don't want to be coming up with ideas that no one else have thought of before, but we would be foolish to uncritically adhere to positions in which significant strands in Orthodox Christian thought have taken an opposite position.

 

[hedrick]

From my Pastor:

I utilize the confessions and find great profit in them, but I sense no obligation to commit myself without reservation to any man-made confession. This is why, instead of officially adhering to the LBC of 1644 or 1689 or any other detailed confession, we have a rather general, (though much more specific than most) doctrinal statement.

What I find interesting is that most confessional fellowships, in practice, agree with me. For instance, if a man is seeking ordination in the PCA, during the ordination process he is free to state points of exception in regard to the Westminster Confession and still be ordained. So not even pastors in confessional groups have to adhere to every jot and tittle of their confessions.

This has, of course, opened me up to charges of not being Truly Reformed by some of my capital "R" Reformed Baptist brethren, but I can live with that. My concern is faithfulness to my Lord and His Word, not loyalty to any particular group, other than His church.

I think this sounds like a reasonable position.

I agree with him that no one accepts confessions as inerrant, and thus that every church allows people to take exception to them in non-essential points. That's been part of the Presbyterian tradition since colonial days.

However his comments don't seem to acknowledge the communal role of confessions. A confession is more than a guide to interpreting Scripture which one may or may not find helpful, like a particular Biblical commentary. It is a confession of the community of which we are a part. The confessions matter because Jesus established the Kingdom of God as a visible community with the power of the keys and rules on how to deal with problems within the community. A confession is a statement of the common faith of the community to which I belong. I may neither accept it without question, giving it the same authority as Scripture, nor ignore it and do my own thing.

This sound to me like someone who basically believes in tradition 0 (using a classification that someone has referred to above in this thread). The Reformed tradition believes in tradition 1.

 

[abacabb3]

However his comments don't seem to acknowledge the communal role of confessions. A confession is more than a guide to interpreting Scripture which one may or may not find helpful, like a particular Biblical commentary. It is a confession of the community of which we are a part. The confessions matter because Jesus established the Kingdom of God as a visible community with the power of the keys and rules on how to deal with problems within the community. A confession is a statement of the common faith of the community to which I belong. I may neither accept it without question, giving it the same authority as Scripture, nor ignore it and do my own thing.

Good points, I'll press him on that, but I believe there might be denominational reasons for that. I have heard the Conservative Baptist Association has issues and does not share the LBC. I hear there is a Spurgeon Fellowship or something within the association. I am unsure if they require a specific confession.

 

[AMR]

This sound to me like someone who basically believes in tradition 0 (using a classification that someone has referred to above in this thread). The Reformed tradition believes in tradition 1.

Yup.

See:
A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura

 

[abacabb3]

Yup.

See:
A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura

I think that is a bit of an unfair categorization. By that definition, Luther and Calvin believe in tradition 0.

 

[AMR]

I think that is a bit of an unfair categorization. By that definition, Luther and Calvin believe in tradition 0.

Brother, you must be quite the speed reader to respond within 25 minutes of my post given the extensive content so linked.

Have you read a more fuller treatment:

Amazon.com: The Shape of Sola Scriptura (9781885767745): Keith A. Mathison: Books

By "that definition" what exactly leads you to your sweeping Luther and Calvin comment?

 

[abacabb3]

I thought it was the same article you linked to on page 3, let me check it out.