Why Be Confessional?

[abacabb3]

What does that last sentence mean?

I did not explain myself adequately. My point is, the RCC makes a claim that they are more true to the Apostolic teachings and traditions than anyone else. THe Reformed Baptist makes the same claim. The Presbyterian and Arminian as well. Even the Jehovah's WItness does. Of course not all of them are right.

So, my point is that very few "Christians" deliberately argue that they pay no heed to tradition. In fact, when they deny tradition, it is often because it is (whether rightly or wrongly) their view that a certain body of tradition contradicts what they view as the earliest and most accurate understanding of what true Apostolic practice was.

Therefore, my Pastor would not be denying tradition any more than Calvin or Luther, the latter two not having historic reformed bodies to appeal to. Instead, the latter two had to extrapolate from their reading of the Scriptures and subsequently the Fathers to formulate their understanding of what true Apostolic teaching was. My Pastor in effect would be doing the same when he feels at a certain point the London Baptist Confession differs with appears to be the majority understanding within Church History and the plain reading of the Scripture.

I think hard and fast Confessionalism, from what I can understand presently, makes the error of teaching that the Confession is at every point without debate. I think that there needs to be an extreme amount of deference, as the Holy Spirit does not lead Godly Christian men into immense confusion so that they would teach falsehood. However, great Christian men (such as Augustine) can also be very wrong about certain things as well. So, we must have our wits about us and ultimately commend ourselves to the grace of God.

 

[abacabb3]

By the providence of God these men, with their extraordinary gifts of teaching, stood explicitly with the community of saints in the church militant that had lost its way, beginning in the fifth century, with the outward transformation of Christianity into Romanism.

Among this community were men such as Pierre Valdo, John Wyckliffe, John Huss, Arnoldi, John of Goch, John Wessel, Nicholas Kuss, John Hilten, Johannes Reuchlin, Jerome Savanarola, as well as the early church divines, including Augustine.

I understand this, but honestly, what stops anyone from legitimately making this claim today? It's not a gotcha question, it's the plain evident truth that these men saw present church teachings were in error because of an interpretation of Scripture and Church Tradition. The existence of Confessions does not make men incapable of looking to the Scripture and Tradition and seeing where a Confession, at a certain point, may be in error.

 

[hedrick]

What community did Luther or Calvin stand with explicitly? (Hedrick can answer this too )

My guess is my pastor's real position is that he accepts what he understands to be the actual beliefs of the Apostles. After all, that what RCCs, Arminians, Reformed Folks, EO, and all legitimate Christians really are claiming.

Luther was part of at least 4 communities:

* A large community concerned about the abuses of the Church. These had resulted in the conciliarist movement, but it was obviously by the 16th Cent that that had failed.
* The humanist reformers. Based on the new knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, these folks were developing new understandings of Scripture.
* The Augustinian order, of which he was a member. Note that Luther's theology was in many ways based on Augustine's. Much of his order supported him. Some saw his early disagreements with representatives of the Pope as part of a long-standing quarrel between Dominican and Augustinian theology.
* The University of Wittenberg. He was teaching there. Most of the University supported him.

Calvin is a different situation, because he was later. He was part of an existing group interested in reform. Many Swiss cities were being reformed at the same time. Calvin consulted with Protestants at Geneva, Bern, Zurich and elsewhere. When he was briefly kicked out of Geneva, he was a pastor in Strasbourg. His closest associate was Farel in the early days.

 

[abacabb3]

Realistically, Luther did not slavishly follow Augustine and differed on many issues. He evolved out of the conciliarist movement. A humanist reformer, based upon his own individual readings of the original language sounds awfully like tradition 0.

 

[AMR]

I did not explain myself adequately. My point is, the RCC makes a claim that they are more true to the Apostolic teachings and traditions than anyone else. THe Reformed Baptist makes the same claim. The Presbyterian and Arminian as well. Even the Jehovah's WItness does. Of course not all of them are right.

So, my point is that very few "Christians" deliberately argue that they pay no heed to tradition. In fact, when they deny tradition, it is often because it is (whether rightly or wrongly) their view that a certain body of tradition contradicts what they view as the earliest and most accurate understanding of what true Apostolic practice was.

Therefore, my Pastor would not be denying tradition any more than Calvin or Luther, the latter two not having historic reformed bodies to appeal to. Instead, the latter two had to extrapolate from their reading of the Scriptures and subsequently the Fathers to formulate their understanding of what true Apostolic teaching was. My Pastor in effect would be doing the same when he feels at a certain point the London Baptist Confession differs with appears to be the majority understanding within Church History and the plain reading of the Scripture.

I think hard and fast Confessionalism, from what I can understand presently, makes the error of teaching that the Confession is at every point without debate. I think that there needs to be an extreme amount of deference, as the Holy Spirit does not lead Godly Christian men into immense confusion so that they would teach falsehood. However, great Christian men (such as Augustine) can also be very wrong about certain things as well. So, we must have our wits about us and ultimately commend ourselves to the grace of God.

This seems to ignore the fact that other than the conciliar creeds no such thing as the WCF, LBCF, etc. existed. The early church men were literally calling an apostate church to reform back to the truths of Scripture.

The church met and formed these Confessions in community and they are not to be taken lightly or claimed error ridden without substantive argument.

What do you mean by "hard and fast Confessionalism"? Again, you toss out phrases and conclusions that leave much unsaid and left for interpretation. Doing so will usually result in responses that are not pleasant as you appear to be waving off matters that have underwent much discussion and debate.

No one is claiming that the church fathers were infallible, inerrant, etc. But what has that to do with the discussion at hand? We Reformed all understand the subordinate role of the Confessions to Holy Writ. We also understand that they have withstood much testing by the church militant and have stood the test of time as accurate summaries of what Scripture teaches.

If you have exceptions to Confessions, make them known to your local session for discussion and see where this takes you in your walk of faith. The church is the venue for debate about errors you see in the Confessions. Internet discussion sites are not for these documents bind no man's conscience outside their covenantal relationship to their local church. Your Pastor has obviously taken exception to some things and his ruling board of elders have no issue. Within this local sphere the matter is settled. If you, as a member cannot abide by the decisions, you can avail yourself of the procedures your church group affords for seeking reconciliation. Sooner or later, the process will reach a final conclusion. At that point you can either accept the correction offered by the church's decisions or obey the dictates of your conscience.

Tradition 0 is all about "just me and my Bible". And no one here is claiming your Pastor falls within that category. Tradition 1 pays attention to standing on the shoulders of others and the patterns of that which was delivered to the church in Holy Writ. Tradition 1 does not throw the baby out with the bathwater all in favor of self-righteous "no creed but Christ" canards.

The groups you claim that all assert "they are more true" do not do so equally or in the same way in the same thing. This is category error at its highest level and you should choose your words more carefully. Lumping all these groups in the same thought is a disservice to many Godly men, and a ninth commandment violation (see Q144, 145 of the WLC).

 

[AMR]

Realistically, Luther did not slavishly follow Augustine and differed on many issues. He evolved out of the conciliarist movement. A humanist reformer, based upon his own individual readings of the original language sounds awfully like tradition 0.

This is the sort of statement that has given me concerns about your knowledge of church history, the Reformation, and confessional development. You tend to make broad assertions without laying any pipe in support of your claims.

We all evolved out of the church councils. Thank God's providence for the churchmen who met the challenges of heresies seeking to gain ground within the church.

"A humanist reformer, based upon his own individual readings of the original language"? I have patiently asked you to define phrases you cobble together that purport evidence of discernment. But it is becoming weary as you seem unwilling to be more perspicuous. I am not going to ask you to explain yourself once more.

 

[abacabb3]

I mean no disrespect honestly, and I say this with the qualification that I have not went to a fancy seminary or spent years in ministry, but I think people need to evaluate their own air of superiority. Both you and Hedrick essentially are generalizing a position you do not agree with which I will dub "anti-confessionalism" painting them with a broad stroke that everyone who does not identify themselves as Confessional sits alone in the woods with their Bible and comes up with a bunch of private interpretations. If I am wrong about this generalization I apologize, but this is the impression I am getting.

Nothing could be further from the truth concerning my pastor. A man can be steeped in tradition, allowing himself to be informed by great Christian brothers throughout the history of the Church, and disagree at certain points with the London Baptist Confession, for example.

In fact, there are points (such as the Sabbath) where the WC, LBC, and etc clearly make a break with Church Tradition and the Scripture. If one is Confessional, and he seeks to submit to their teaching anyway on this matter, that is fine. However, to assert that it is binding on the conscience of the Christian is essentially to put yourself in the place of Rome against Luther. Luther, had to extrapolate a consistent tradition and theology from the annals of Church History that have long been misapplied than forgotten. He had no Confession to stand upon for many of the matters he was addressing. He was, by the way, anti-sabbitarian.

Please, can you be more perspicuous and come out with an answer as to how in practical terms Luther would be any different than my Pastor in his approach? I asked this question many posts ago, and we keep going down these rabbit trails.

If a practical answer cannot be given, then I do not see how I can be edified by your Confessional viewpoint. I am honestly trying to understand the difference so I can see if my Pastor's position is in error, and instead what I am seeing is essentially an indefensible viewpoint that makes a nominal differentiation but not in any tangible sense.

 

[abacabb3]

This seems to ignore the fact that other than the conciliar creeds no such thing as the WCF, LBCF, etc. existed.

That's exactly the point. Luther discerned that at a certain point, the RCC evolved beyond the traditions of the Apostles. He had no modern Confession to stand upon.

So, what if you are convinced by clear reason in 2014 that what a Confession teaches clearly breaks with the Scripture and all early interpretations of the Scripture? My honest question to you is at what point are you obligated to submit to a teaching that you would now understand to be clearly with odds with the legitimate tradition of the Church?

Now, I know you don't feel this way, so I am asking yourself to be in my shoes and tell me what you would do if you were me.

The church met and formed these Confessions in community and they are not to be taken lightly or claimed error ridden without substantive argument.

No one claimed they are error-ridden, this is hyperbole. In fact, both JM and I on this thread have specifically taken issue with the Sabbath. There is a thread on it here where, in detail, the issue has been given careful consideration. The COnfession on all other points has been described as nothing less than sublime.

What do you mean by "hard and fast Confessionalism"? Again, you toss out phrases and conclusions that leave much unsaid and left for interpretation.

It is my impression that someone who would disagree about the Sabbath, after careful study, would not be Confessional in your viewpoint, even if they submitted to it on every other point. That would be the "hard and fast" part.

No one is claiming that the church fathers were infallible, inerrant, etc.

What are you even responding to here? I hold the Fathers and great esteem and I quote them at length in this board, probably more than anyone within the Reformed section.

But what has that to do with the discussion at hand?

What does it? What are you honestly responding to?

Internet discussion sites are not for these documents bind no man's conscience outside their covenantal relationship to their local church.

I am in full agreement about this, I am merely defending my Pastor's position. Spiritually, I am under the discipline of my local church.

Your Pastor has obviously taken exception to some things and his ruling board of elders have no issue.

Where do you come up with these assumptions? From his response, he did not even explicitly say he disagreed with anything in the LBC. From experience, the only point of disagreement he has is with the Sabbath.

Tradition 0 is all about "just me and my Bible". And no one here is claiming your Pastor falls within that category.

Clearly this was the claim from Hedirck. You simply said my Pastor made a self-refuting claim, presuming he was making a cogent logical argument instead of actually responding to the substance of what he said.

This is category error at its highest level and you should choose your words more carefully. Lumping all these groups in the same thought is a disservice to many Godly men, and a ninth commandment violation (see Q144, 145 of the WLC).

Honestly, it appears we are talking past each other. Being that it appears you are not even really addressing what my Pastor even said, which is what I am actually addressing, you are the one speaking in error. All of this hyperbole about me being in sin about anything said here is disconcerting to say the least.

If you want, it might be instructive to answer the underlined question I have above and for you to revisit specifically what my Pastor said, understanding it was an off the cuff remark. I would appreciate this, because as I said at the beginning of this thread, I want to better understand Confessionalism.

 

[AMR]

So, what if you are convinced by clear reason in 2014 that what a Confession teaches clearly breaks with the Scripture and all early interpretations of the Scripture? My honest question to you is at what point are you obligated to submit to a teaching that you would now understand to be clearly with odds with the legitimate tradition of the Church?

This is chronological snobbery at its worst. The notion that we "moderns" are somehow more enlightened than those that have come before us, hence we need not heed what men indwelt with the very same Spirit as we are today, is at the root of not a few issues within the church militant.

For further very careful study, that is, not between phone calls and such at work :

The Creedal Imperative: Carl R. Trueman: 9781433521904: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Reformed-Confession-Theology-Practice-ebook/dp/B00BPG5DAK

http://www.amazon.com/Confessing-Faith-Readers-Westminster-Confession/dp/1848714041

And once more for emphasis:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/085234340X

 

[abacabb3]

AMR, please help me out. The year does not matter. I am trying to ask a practical question. I would appreciate your specific response, not to be referred to four books. Let me rephrase:

So, what if someone is convinced by clear reason at any time in history that what a Confession teaches clearly breaks with the Scripture and all early interpretations of the Scripture? My honest question to you is at what point are you obligated to submit to a teaching that you would now understand to be clearly with odds with the legitimate tradition of the Church?

For the record, it does not matter how I get my reading done. Much of my reading of Augustine, my reading of Propser of Aquataine, and other Fathers is done during this time because at my work it is appropriate to read on a computer during down time but not actually read a book. If my reading of it is somehow unsatisfactory, then please point out what points I have misread. If you take issue merely with the method, then that is actual snobbery and nothing more than a thinly veiled insult. We are brothers in Christ and should love one another in word and deed. I am sorry if I offend you in any way, but I just don't think your response here is kind.

If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong. I honestly don't see a cogent defense of Confessionalism here, and I sincerely want to understand if there is a rationale between holding fast to a Confession in light of the question posed above.

 

[hedrick]

I agree with abacabb3, to a point.

Confessional churches see the confessions as secondary standards. They are not inerrant. It’s Catholics who accept inerrant tradition. If you think a confession is wrong, you’re supposed to make that case to the rest of the Church. The concept of sola scriptura means they’re not allowed to ignore you, confident that the confessions are inerrant. Of course some objections have been made often enough that they’re not going to carefully reexamine things every time someone makes it. But still, in principle we believe that we can be wrong, and that individuals have a right to ask for a hearing. Otherwise we’ve become Catholics with a 16th Cent infallible tradition.

What happens if your fellow Christians, after due consideration, think you’re wrong (or if it’s a matter that’s been considered before and no one sees the need for reconsideration)? It depends upon how serious the matter is. You may choose to live with the disagreement. The Presbyterian tradition in the US has never demanded subscription to Westminster in every detail. But if it’s a serious matter, there is probably no alternative but a peaceful departure.

The question of disagreements that can’t be settled is one on which no church that I know has a good solution. The Catholic tradition used to say “we’re right; submit or else.” Since the 16th Cent they can no longer enforce the “or else,” but the tradition of submitting even where you disagree continues, so we have a Church where in the US the majority of members disagree with the Church on important issues but remain in it. I don’t think this is healthy, but Catholics think it’s better than having the church fragment every time there’s a disagreement.

Protestants in the US take the other approach. It has its own problems. The Reformers seem to have thought that on most issues we could find a fairly clear Scriptural answer. Many still agree, and think that their answer is obviously right and every one else is being obstinate. But I think the idea that everyone who disagrees is being obstinate is no longer plausible. At any rate, Protestants have generally felt that members should agree with the official position of their church, and if they don’t, they should withdraw. In some ways this may be more healthy for the church, but it leads to a fragmentation that has its own problems.

The confessional churches, as you probably know, generally have the most extensive official theologies among Protestants, and generally want all members to agree with them on important issues. I’m a Presbyterian rather than some other mainline denomination specifically because of the substantial theology and the tradition of taking theology seriously.

I think confessionalism is to some extent a matter of degree. Everyone has a de facto tradition. The confessional churches have official traditions, which tend to be established more carefully, with more historical and intellectual backing, have a more explicit process for reviewing, and changes are made openly with new confessions. But it's also to some extent a matter of how we speak of what we're doing. Many Christians claim not to have a tradition. They think they're just believing the Bible. Realistically that's not true, and if you push them they'll normally agree that they pay attention to other Christians. But still, they often don't have the explicit processes that confessional churches do.

However I'm from a mainline confessional church. We're more willing to change than the conservative ones, by definition. I'd go further, and say that any church that hasn't changed at least some significant beliefs over the last 200 years is probably treating their tradition as inerrant. That's not what I think confessionalism means.

 

[abacabb3]

In the PCA, both PCA churches I attended were COnfessional but not Sabbitarian. I thought those churches were pretty conservative, so I was surprised to find out that there is an even more conservative form of COnfessionalism out there. My Pastor is Schenectady is a former Seminary Professor, for example.

 

[AMR]

AMR, please help me out. The year does not matter. I am trying to ask a practical question. I would appreciate your specific response, not to be referred to four books. Let me rephrase:

So, what if someone is convinced by clear reason at any time in history that what a Confession teaches clearly breaks with the Scripture and all early interpretations of the Scripture? My honest question to you is at what point are you obligated to submit to a teaching that you would now understand to be clearly with odds with the legitimate tradition of the Church?

For the record, it does not matter how I get my reading done. Much of my reading of Augustine, my reading of Propser of Aquataine, and other Fathers is done during this time because at my work it is appropriate to read on a computer during down time but not actually read a book. If my reading of it is somehow unsatisfactory, then please point out what points I have misread. If you take issue merely with the method, then that is actual snobbery and nothing more than a thinly veiled insult. We are brothers in Christ and should love one another in word and deed. I am sorry if I offend you in any way, but I just don't think your response here is kind.

If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong. I honestly don't see a cogent defense of Confessionalism here, and I sincerely want to understand if there is a rationale between holding fast to a Confession in light of the question posed above.

abacabb3,

You are seeking quick snippets versus digging deeper. I have pointed out to you examples of your misunderstandings based upon quote mining here and there, but I have no obligation to reign you in at every turn. So wave off the materials I have recommended if you will, but if you are truly seeking to understand Confessionalism you need to immerse yourself in study by those so gifted who teach us. Internet discussions are no substitute for serious and prayerful study.

If you are convinced that the Confession is in error you do not have warrant to argue everyone else has it wrong. The noetic effects of sin remains even in the regenerate. This is why we have the church to guide us, check our thinking, set boundaries...in community. You may not be in doubt, but you just may be wrong. Being willing to submit to the greater wisdom of the church is hard for us all, for we are a stiff-necked people, always creating new intellectual idols in the idol factories of our minds. Try being willing to do so and I am confident you will soon find your presuppositions changing and becoming more aligned with the community of saints. Beware of the lure of being in the minority, for it tickles our ears and feeds our vanity. When you find yourself outside the bounds of the majority of the church's wisdom, that should be a warning sign to tread carefully and examine your own "confidence" about grave matters.

Frequent assertion of "wrongness" in the Confessions seems to imply we are in the midst of another heralder come to set us back on course. I think the great men of old were special gifts of the providence of the Lord to the church. Truly rare events in the fullness of time. So leverage the community of saints and what they have to say that has withstood the test of the centuries of debate.

Yes, it is true that anyone who feels compelled to push the boundaries on core doctrines won’t find me very welcoming. This may come across as some sort of fundamentalism, but I do study and engage the Scriptures daily, and I am transformed by them. I remain convinced of the wisdom of the forefathers that came before us when I thoroughly read what they have written and compare their writings to Scripture. It seems not a week goes by that someone somewhere decides they have a new view, new perspective, or new interpretation related to the fundamentals of our faith; despite these truths having withstood the test of time and painful examination for many, many, hundreds of years.

Thus I become very concerned about discussions that start to challenge the core aspects of our faith. For those who see themselves as theological sophisticates, I would ask that these persons seek a more pastoral approach, rather than trying to be innovative. I recognize that within theological circles it seems that only if one is radical or a trail-blazer that they garner attention. But the constant plowing up of new ground is not what I see as the task of theology. Indeed, I am very content to stop, ponder, and be satisfied to walk in the same steps of those who have come before me. In fact, being more willing to so is what is needed today, versus demonstrations to others how wonderful a person’s insightful exegesis, logic, or sophisticated reasoning may be.

 

[abacabb3]

That's a very long way of not addressing the question. Being that you are not intent on answering I won't rephrase. I'll just make clear that you are clearly mischaracterizing me and your position would be at odds with that of ordained members of the PCA, which I learned under for a few years.

No one here is crusading against Confessionalism nor claiming new revelation. If you understood this, you would have not reacted so personally.

One comment of yours particularly concerns me:

When you find yourself outside the bounds of the majority of the church's wisdom, that should be a warning sign to tread carefully and examine your own "confidence" about grave matters.

The problem is the only point in which not only I disagree with, but also my church and quite a few PCA churches disagree with, is the Sabbath. Otherwise, there are no issues with anything the COnfession says. Further, if you care to investigate the matter, you will find that the Sabbitarian position would be outside the majority of the church's wisdom, unless you include medieval RCC practices into the mix.

God bless,
Craig

 

[AMR]

That's a very long way of not addressing the question.

My second paragraph spoke very directly to the question, no?

Just sayin'.

 

[AMR]

The problem is the only point in which not only I disagree with, but also my church and quite a few PCA churches disagree with, is the Sabbath. Otherwise, there are no issues with anything the COnfession says. Further, if you care to investigate the matter, you will find that the Sabbitarian position would be outside the majority of the church's wisdom, unless you include medieval RCC practices into the mix.

Both the LBCF and WCF are clear on the matter and I believe accurately reflect the teachings of Scripture. As laymen we are free to take reasoned exceptions as long as we keep the peace in the obedience that we affirmed in our membership covenant with churches that affirm these Confessional documents. This means we do not run around elsewhere and claim "error!". Folks seem to think their actions outside the church walls do not fall within the purview of the discipline of the church. They are quite wrong for our walk of faith extends to all that we think, do, or say.

With that, I think you and I have exhausted the discussion possible in venues such as CF. The next step should be withdrawal into quiet reflection and deeper study. If obtaining any of the books I have recommended to deepen your knowledge is not possible for you at present, please pick one and let me know where I may send it to you electronically (Kindle eBook) or by postal mail (paper book). I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

 

[abacabb3]

My second paragraph spoke very directly to the question, no?

Just sayin'.

Not really, you pretty much threw out the accusation of idolatry, which would then automatically assume that any Christian that prefers a Confession other than yours is an innovator. This is not unnecessarily untrue, but it shows a very low view of the minds behind the Second Helvetic, Martin Luther, and other anti-sabbitarians, because by that logic they are also innovators. Further, it would negate any grounds for Christians to be credobaptists, because that to I believe would be against WCF, which is probably the Confession you adhere to.

The problem with this whole conversation is that you have not really defended Confessionalism. Rather, you simply conveyed a very low view of people that do not specifically line of with your specific view of Confessionalism, which would include ordained members of the PCA.

Confessions are man-made documents, made by learned men of God, expressing what they best know to be the will of God. In different parts of Europe and later the US, different Confessions were devised. They summarize proper Christian teaching the best that the men who devised them understood it. They were not infallible, and at several different points these different Confessions disagreed.

It almost seems that all of that is meaningless to you, because contrary to what was said in the first paragraph I don't really think you have issues with the LBC versus the WCF. Instead, as long as someone assumes the label of "Confessionalism," even if the one who adheres to the label believes in a Confession that specifically disagrees with the WCF on certain points, you believe that automatically makes the church or believer automatically in line with tradition...even though one Confession's view of tradition at points contradicts another. I am sorry, but this does not seem like a logical belief system.

Lastly, your offer to send a book is very kind. None of those books specifically interest me presently, but I'll let you know if I change my mind.

 

[JM]

Turn down a free book?

 

[abacabb3]

Turn down a free book?

I have a good excuse! I'm reading through The Theology of Infant Salvation by R.A. Webb, then my Pastor wants me to read a annotated version of the London Baptist Confession. I also want to read on the history of baptism and finish a book on Lean Production my boss gave me a year ago...

Plus my bookshelf is almost out of room and I don't own a Kindle But, I will give it thought, maybe I will finish Webb's book sooner.

 

[Hokma]

Abacabb3: aren't you just asking what is the process of reforming the confession, without being kicked out or contra confessional? Or, put another way, how might a member initiate a revision of the churches confession (eventually to the GA) without being disciplined?

Assumption: the hypothetical revision is from Scripture's witness with somehow more careful exegesis than the Westminster assembly (or more faithful exegesis, given information not available to the Divines)