Why Be Confessional?

[abacabb3]

Honestly, I don't understand the verbiage of 3:2. I have no issue with God ordaining evil. I just don't know what 3:2 even says.

As for 3:1, the best I can surmise is that God does not approve of Satan in anyway (i.e. have fellowship), but He works good out of the evil of Satan and his children among men that work evil as well.

 

[hedrick]

Honestly, I don't understand the verbiage of 3:2. I have no issue with God ordaining evil. I just don't know what 3:2 even says.

As for 3:1, the best I can surmise is that God does not approve of Satan in anyway (i.e. have fellowship), but He works good out of the evil of Satan and his children among men that work evil as well.

I would understand that doesn't have fellowship with any in sin is saying that the Holy Spirit isn't present in sinners. Of course this is overridden for those who are justified in Christ.

On Job. There are lots of answers to that. One is that 3:1 is almost certainly thinking of the presence of the Holy Spirit, fellowship, not that God has no interaction whatever with sinners. But the author of Job probably thought of Satan as God's prosecuting attorney, not the source of sin. And it's likely a folk story used as the setting for the author's reflections on theodicy. I wouldn't spend too much time looking at the doctrinal implications of God making a bet with Satan.

On 3:2: I believe this is basically rejecting the concept that God elects people because he forsees their choice. It seems to be directed specifically against Molinism. Molinism says that God knows what a person would do under any circumstances. This is called middle knowledge. 3:2 specifically refers to this. "Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions" describes middle knowledge. It acknowledges that God does in fact have middle knowledge. But Molinism says that because of this knowledge God is able to put together the plan that goes where he wants, while still allowing people to make free decisions. Middle knowledge lets God use people's free choices as part of a plan over which he is completely sovereign. 3:2 explicitly rejects the idea that this is how God's decrees work: "yet hath He not decreed anything, because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." The last phrase is referring to middle knowledge. So this clause denies that God's decrees are based on his middle knowledge.

Why would the Reformed tradition reject Molinism? At some level it seems to be true. I've noted in the past that God's sovereignty and predestination say two things that are probably best distinguished. Unless you accept open theism, God is in charge. His plan includes everything. Molinism, it seems to me, is perfectly reasonable in understanding how God can have a plan that covers all choices while still allowing people to make choices for which they are responsible.

But predestination goes beyond this, because left to our own free choice, we would never be redeemed. So God must actively intervene in our lives. It's that necessity and that active redemption that Molinism doesn't take into account. His election can't be based on middle knowledge, because middle knowledge would tell him that under any possible condition we would always reject him.

I think there's more to be said on this, and that Molinism can be used in a different way, but this should be enough to see what the confession writers were thinking.

 

[hedrick]

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

Most. Second Helvetic Confession:

"SUPERSTITION. In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God. Moreover, we celebrate the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance."

Reformed practice was uniform, however Reformed theory sometimes retained Calvin's own view that the choice of the Sabbath is free, that the Church picks one day and establishes rules for it as a matter of order, and that it is not a religious obligation to celebrate any particular day.

 

[prov1810]

I've been evangelical for fifteen years. I have found something that's perfect for me: a church with evangelical worship and Reformed doctrine. There's a class for singles that goes through Wayne Grudem's theology every year and I've done it a couple times. We have a statement of faith but it's not as comprehensive as a confession.

What impresses me about confessional Christians like Lutherans and Presbyterians is how well catechized they are. They have something to say. Christianity has content and it's a bit more detailed than the Chinese cookie fortunes of pop Christianity. And more nourishing.

 

[hedrick]

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?

No you can't pick your favorite confession, except indirectly by deciding to be part of a particular church tradition. Let me give you a view of what it means to be confessional that is different from the other participants in this group, but which represents many (maybe even a majority) of Reformed Christians, at least in the English-speaking world.

For us, being confessional is a consequence of being a church. God doesn't leave us to figure out things on our own. He grafts us into his body. He gives that body the authority to make decisions. That's what the power of the keys is about. This was a rabbinical concept: the authority of a rabbi to make authoritative interpretation of Torah. See Mat 16:18-20.

For that reason in the Reformed tradition, theology is always done in community. That community includes great theologians of the past. We don't always accept Augustine's views, but he is part of the conversation. So is Calvin, Barth, and current writers such as Wright.

Confessions are a way that community expresses its faith. In the 16th Cent it was used apologetically, as a way to say "our enemies are making all kind of false claims about how we are rejecting Christianity, so here's what we really believe." Confessions are used for teaching our own members. And they are used to establish the distinctive position of our community. Members, and particularly leaders, are expected to be part of that community and to be guided by its confessions.

This does not, however, mean that the community will never change, nor that members are required to agree with every sentence of the confessions. The Presbyterian tradition, from the early colonial days, has allowed disagreements with the confessions, requiring only agreement to the essentials of the Reformed faith.

The Presbyterian community didn't issue any new confessions between the 17th Cent and the 20th, although the American church did change Westminster to fit the circumstances in the US. In the early 20th Cent it issued some "clarifications" of the Westminster Confession which in my view changed some of its provisions. E.g. it explicitly rejected limited atonement. Since then, there have been several new confessions, Barmen, the Confession of 1967, and the Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith. There's a proposal (which I support) to add Calvin's French Confession. (Incidentally, I agree with the PCC document below that it's a bad idea to change historic confessions. Despite the weirdness of adding clarifications that change the content, I think it's better to do that than the tamper with the text of the confession.)

The Presbyterian Church in Canada has a nice treatment of what it means to be confessional. It looks at history, the views of other churches and the two approaches currently common within the Reformed tradition: http://presbyterian.ca/?wpdmdl=278. I commend this document to your attention.

 

[prov1810]

A confession is important because we should not speak carelessly about complicated things, holy things that we approach with reverent fear. The articles are concise but they are not glib.

 

[JM]

Most. Second Helvetic Confession:

"SUPERSTITION. In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God. Moreover, we celebrate the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance."

Reformed practice was uniform, however Reformed theory sometimes retained Calvin's own view that the choice of the Sabbath is free, that the Church picks one day and establishes rules for it as a matter of order, and that it is not a religious obligation to celebrate any particular day.

hedrick, the Second Helvetic Confession is subordinate and stands as a historical witness to the church working out its theology. It is subordinate to the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster (in the Baptist case LBC).

That stated I actually agree with what it states about the Lord's Day.

 

[hedrick]

hedrick, the Second Helvetic Confession is subordinate and stands as a historical witness to the church working out its theology. It is subordinate to the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster (in the Baptist case LBC).

That stated I actually agree with what it states about the Lord's Day.

The original claim was all Reformed confessions. Second Helvetic is a Reformed Confession. I agree that traditional Reformed thought converged to a Sabbatarian position. But I think it's important to realize that the Reformed tradition includes other views.

Of the 3 forms of unity:

Heidelberg actually seems to show the transition. The Latin doesn't use the word Sabbath for our worship, though it refers to the heavenly eternal Sabbath. However in other versions it is sometimes translated Sabbath. The German that is contemporary with the Latin uses a word that seems to be feast day, though of course that can also cover the Sabbath, and some assert that should be translated Sabbath. But since the German can bear the same sense as the Latin, it would seem reasonable to think that the original translators intended that. Ursinus' commentary on the Latin distinguishes the Christian celebration of the Lord's Day from the Jewish Sabbath, but subsumes both under a more general concept of Sabbath, foreshadowing the eternal Sabbath.

Belgic doesn't seem to mention the Sabbath.

I haven't found it in the copies of the canons of Dort I can find online, though there seems to be another document from Dort covering it. That document distinguishes between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord's day.

This is a very contentious topic, some some arguing strongly that there is no distinction within the Reformed tradition at all, and claiming that Calvin actually meant something different from what he seems pretty clearly to say.

The evidence suggests to me that Calvin in fact distinguished the Sabbath from a free celebration of the Lord's day, and that the confessions moved over time in the direction of identifying it with the Sabbath. It sounds like you agree with this. (It's worth noting that Calvin seems to mean that it is free for the Church, not for individuals. As a matter of order, the Church may establish a day of worship and legislate what can be done on it. Calvin's Geneva certainly did that. However Geneva's sabbatarian-style legislatin doesn't contradict Calvin's claim that we are not bound to the Jewish Sabbath.)

There is a new translation of Heidelberg that several denominations are now using. It returns to the Latin for this question.

 

[JM]

The point remains: the church sort to clarify what was being taught and therefore made the confession you mentioned of less importance. It was a work in progress.

 

[hedrick]

The point remains: the church sort to clarify what was being taught and therefore made the confession you mentioned of less importance. It was a work in progress.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it was the primary confession for the community that drew it up, and secondary for others. I've found a bit of difficulty getting information on current Swiss confessions, but this page Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches ? World Council of Churches suggests that it is still the primary confession for the Swiss Reformed churches.

 

[AMR]

What a difference a vowel makes:

Modern Reformation - Articles

 

[abacabb3]

Good article. Question about a quote from Charles Hodge:

In other words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian.

What is this common faith, and to what extent does the individual find himself duty-bound to examine this? For example, the whole penance system from Catholicism would stand solidly upon tradition from as early as the 4th century onwards. Theologians can draw parallels between in and the sacrificial system.

Now as for me when I look at this issue, as I also look at the issue of the Sabbath, I see a fundamental misunderstanding of how a man is in right standing before God. Obviously, I have modern Protestants who would agree with my on this. However, in Luther's time, where would these people be? There wouldn't even be tradition to appeal to, as penance kind of sneaked in over time, and grew more and more convoluted.

So, how can we correctly discern what is the common faith, or who has it right so that we may submit to them and by doing so, in actuality be submitting ourselves to God?

 

[abacabb3]

hedrick, the Second Helvetic Confession is subordinate and stands as a historical witness to the church working out its theology. It is subordinate to the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster (in the Baptist case LBC).

That stated I actually agree with what it states about the Lord's Day.

God willing, I will finish reading the LBC soon, but what are we to do with tradition when there is so much we agree with, but on certain points (such as the Sabbath) they appear to be so clearly wrong not only in light of Scripture, but from earlier tradition?

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, Chap 9)

Just to get context, Trypho (a Jewish apologist) wrote this in his critique of Christians:

You, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from other nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths and do not have the rite of circumcision...

Justin Marty wrote in response to him citing the understanding of the Sabbath being fulfilled in Christ i.e. Hebrews 4:

We live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do…. An eternal and final law — namely, Christ — has been given to us…. He is the new law, and the new covenant…. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath...

Source for above quotations is here.

 

[JM]

It's important to keep in mind the time in church history when the confessions were written. If I'm not mistaken the idea of a Sunday Sabbath was distinctly English. (see Sabbath to Lord's Day - ed. Carson)

Confessions are not scripture but good or bad expressions of biblical doctrine.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[AMR]

So, how can we correctly discern what is the common faith, or who has it right so that we may submit to them and by doing so, in actuality be submitting ourselves to God?

We discern and interpret Scripture in the community of saints, not in isolation. Look to the instruction received at the hands of those in authority over you in the church to which you have covenanted your membership. If yours is a confessional church, then I am confident the church declares (confesses its beliefs) what it determines to be the accurate summaries of Holy Writ, while exhorting all members to test what they have been taught with Scripture--the ultimate authority of all that we should do, think, or say. Having done so, if you find your personal studies leading you beyond the bounds of what you have been taught by the church, then seek out the church's appointed leaders for guidance.

 

[JM]

AMR, many Reformed Baptists attend churches that do not have confessions of faith. What should a believer do in this case?

Thanks,

j

 

[AMR]

AMR, many Reformed Baptists attend churches that do not have confessions of faith. What should a believer do in this case?

Thanks,

j

I realize that a reformed Baptist may be forced to attend a church without formally written confessional basis. Nevertheless, he or she is not without a means of discernment of said church's position.

The real issue is that all churches have a confession of faith, but many churches do not have written confessions of faith. Hence, it is incumbent upon those in attendance to discern what is the church's actual "confession" by listening to sermons, teachings in their "Sunday Schools", prayer meetings (Lex orandi, lex credenda), church bulletins, and discussions around church dinners and other functions.

 

[abacabb3]

We discern and interpret Scripture in the community of saints, not in isolation. Look to the instruction received at the hands of those in authority over you in the church to which you have covenanted your membership. If yours is a confessional church, then I am confident the church declares (confesses its beliefs) what it determines to be the accurate summaries of Holy Writ, while exhorting all members to test what they have been taught with Scripture--the ultimate authority of all that we should do, think, or say. Having done so, if you find your personal studies leading you beyond the bounds of what you have been taught by the church, then seek out the church's appointed leaders for guidance.

I have no found such conflict. My wife and I were out to dinner yesterday with one of the Elder's and his wife. The majority of our conversations revolved around marriage, but I did get to ask about the LBC and I was essentially told that our authority is the Scripture and Confessions are a secondary resource. Our church officially teaches that SUnday is not the Sabbath, so I would be submitting to the church's teaching though not to the LBC.

I asked what our role as a church is to not deviate from a COnfession or from "Christian orthodoxy." We then spoke of the troubles of how we make ourselves the arbiters of "correct" Church tradition and by doing so, in effect, become a denomination of one. None of us felt that issue can be really resolved. It's a tension we have to live under.

 

[abacabb3]

On 3:2: I believe this is basically rejecting the concept that God elects people because he forsees their choice. It seems to be directed specifically against Molinism. Molinism says that God knows what a person would do under any circumstances....Why would the Reformed tradition reject Molinism? At some level it seems to be true. I've noted in the past that God's sovereignty and predestination say two things that are probably best distinguished...But predestination goes beyond this, because left to our own free choice, we would never be redeemed. So God must actively intervene in our lives. It's that necessity and that active redemption that Molinism doesn't take into account. His election can't be based on middle knowledge, because middle knowledge would tell him that under any possible condition we would always reject him.

Thanks for making that all make sense!

 

[BryanW92]

I was essentially told that our authority is the Scripture and Confessions are a secondary resource.

The Confession uses Scripture as its authority. If it doesn't dispute Scripture then there is no conflict. If a person thinks that it does conflict with scripture, then who is right: the person now or the host of people who have studied and accepted the confession?

Scripture is the only authority, but a Confession is a clear statement of how we interpret that scripture.