Can one be too confessional?

[timmopussycat]

Lynnie, if you can find that prof's name, I'd love to know who it is, will read some of what he writes.

There are other passages in Revelation that may involve new canon, but the witnesses are explicit. The problem with tradition is that with time conclusions without a totally solid scriptural basis become fossilized and enshrined as sacred. They can no longer be questioned. The scriptures can't be looked at freshly, with the question, "Is this truly what was taught?" In the past, the Lord in His sovereignty was prone to pull providential surprises. Example: Jesus coming from Nazareth when everyone expected him to be from Bethlehem. It was the systemized traditions of the Jews that led to many of them missing their own Messiah. The scriptures stated born in Bethlehem; growing up was not necessarily in Bethlehem.

Lest there be misunderstanding, I heartily affirm a closed canon at the present time. But it is tradition, not scripture. Hence I hold to it a wee bit looser than the deity of Jesus.

Actually the Pharisees forgot that there was Scriptural witness to a major deliverance coming out of Galilee. (Is. 9:1-7)

 

[Pergamum]

Just a note: Most people do not hold to the original version of the Westminster Confession. This seems to show that most do not consider the confessions to be above critique.

 

[Scott1]

Just a note: Most people do not hold to the original version of the Westminster Confession. This seems to show that most do not consider the confessions to be above critique.

Also, unlike Scripture, the Westminster Confession can be amended.

It's a high, deliberative standard for amending, but in the PCA, it takes a 3/4 vote of General Assembly, approval by 3/4 of the Presbyteries (by majority votes), and a 3/4 vote of the subsequent General Assembly to amend the Westminster Standards.

Of course, Scripture cannot be amended.

 

[Scott1]

A few thoughts below.

But there may occur times when a confession is used inappropriately: for example, citing a confessional statement rather than a Scriptural statement in discussions with believers who either do not accept the same confession in toto, or else do not accept that it is correct on a particular detail. And this does occur, the latter more frequently than the former.

There are many situations that we could imagine, but, in general, and realizing this is anecdotal only, very few believers not in a confessional communion have the slightest idea what the Confession as a whole, or in part says. That's why it can be helpful to quote the Confession as to a particular statement and/or proposition of doctrine, gauge reaction, and use that as a basis for explaining, using Scripture and examples.

In such situations, even though the confessional statement may be true to Scripture's teaching, the failure even attempt to express Scriptural truth via accurately exegeses of Scriptural statements alone is a logical error and it should be avoided.

Yet broad evangelicals express Scriptural principles by stories, opinions, appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, all the time. And take individual Scripture out of context (out of context of the system of the rest of Scripture)

Why is that, Tim?

(That's where much of the error in the church comes from.)


For when the supreme authority is Scripture, and the confessions are being compared against it, which is what our friends are doing in such discussions, citing the confessions as authoritative is illegitimate argumentation, because such citation presupposes confessional fidelity to Scripture without first proving their fidelity to Scripture on the point at issue.

I don't think so. It's a matter of understanding the Standards are taken as summaries of the biblical doctrine to which they speak.
But, it might be appropriate in some circumstances to explain from Scripture first, then go back and show the Confession agrees. As you point out, that may be useful.

There is not a mutually exclusive way of doing it, particularly when one understands the power of having the excellent systematic biblical summary the Westminster Standards provide.



Which is an example of the logical error of begging the question.

"Begging the question" (assuming the conclusion of an argument; a form of circular reasoning) is not really done when someone summarizes (Confession), then drills down to particulars (the Scripture proofs).

One of the most overlooked aspects of the Westminster Standards is how every single statement and/or proposition of doctrine is footnoted with Scripture proofs. In the PCA notebook edition, 2/3 or 3/4 of the page is often Scripture- 1/3 or 1/4 the Standards.

 

[timmopussycat]

But there may occur times when a confession is used inappropriately: for example, citing a confessional statement rather than a Scriptural statement in discussions with believers who either do not accept the same confession in toto, or else do not accept that it is correct on a particular detail. And this does occur, the latter more frequently than the former.

There are many situations that we could imagine, but, in general, and realizing this is anecdotal only, very few believers not in a confessional communion have the slightest idea what the Confession as a whole, or in part says. That's why it can be helpful to quote the Confession as to a particular statement and/or proposition of doctrine, gauge reaction, and use that as a basis for explaining, using Scripture and examples.

Unfortunately situations where Scripture is used to prove a confessional premise are not the situations that are most often seen. What is usually seen is a mere restatement of the confessional premise coupled with outright refusals to provide solid refutations of challenges that put Scriptural support for the confessional premise into question.

In such situations, even though the confessional statement may be true to Scripture's teaching, the failure even attempt to express Scriptural truth via accurately exegeses of Scriptural statements alone is a logical error and it should be avoided.

Yet broad evangelicals express Scriptural principles by stories, opinions, appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, all the time.

So just because broad evangelicals make an error in handling Scripture, it's OK for us to avoid handling Scripture? I don't think so: two wrongs make a blight.

And take individual Scripture out of context (out of context of the system of the rest of Scripture).

We claim that the confessions are accurate summaries of Scriptural teaching. If that claim is true we should be able to demonstrate from Scripture the truth of any given confessional premise solely by demonstrating either that the Scriptures state the premise directly or that the premise follows as a good and necessary consequence from a Scriptural statement.

Why is that, Tim? (That's where much of the error in the church comes from.)

The point of my original post was not the errors of broad evangelicals but an abuse of the confessions by the Reformed.

For when the supreme authority is Scripture, and the confessions are being compared against it, which is what our friends are doing in such discussions, citing the confessions as authoritative is illegitimate argumentation, because such citation presupposes confessional fidelity to Scripture without first proving their fidelity to Scripture on the point at issue.

I don't think so. It's a matter of understanding the Standards are taken as summaries of the biblical doctrine to which they speak.
But, it might be appropriate in some circumstances to explain from Scripture first, then go back and show the Confession agrees. As you point out, that may be useful.

There is not a mutually exclusive way of doing it, particularly when one understands the power of having the excellent systematic biblical summary the Westminster Standards provide.

My point is that in certain defined circumstances it is "appropriate" "to explain from Scripture first" and in those circumstances, relying on confessions rather than Scripture is contra indicated.

Which is an example of the logical error of begging the question.

"Begging the question" (assuming the conclusion of an argument; a form of circular reasoning) is not really done when someone summarizes (Confession), then drills down to particulars (the Scripture proofs).

One of the most overlooked aspects of the Westminster Standards is how every single statement and/or proposition of doctrine is footnoted with Scripture proofs. In the PCA notebook edition, 2/3 or 3/4 of the page is often Scripture- 1/3 or 1/4 the Standards.

The problem of begging the question will arise when we are presented with arguments challenging the view that a confessional premise can be necessarily derived from the proof text or texts given and we reply as described above. I have seen this happen many times and unfortunately I must report that I have never seen a confessional believer seriously engage with such challenges.

 

[Jack K]

I'm somewhat surprised to see that this discussion is still going on, because the yes/no answer seems simple enough to me:

Either... the confessions are the ultimate good, above the Bible and even above God himself.

Or... the confessions are NOT the ultimate good, in which case it is possible to be too confessional if one treats them as the ultimate good. The fact that such idolatry would be inconsistent with the confessions themselves does not necessarily mean it can't happen. People are inconsistent all the time, especially when it comes to heart-worship vs. stated beliefs.

So, it is possible to be too confessional. This fact should in no way feel threatening to those of us who deeply value the confessions. It doesn't mean their great importance for teaching, defending the faith, giving a foundation to the church, etc. is diminished in any way. In fact, a healthy awareness that we must guard against turning them into idols is a confessional strength. Holding on to such an awareness lets us be rigorous and enthusiastic users of the confessions without worry that such constant use will become idolatry.

 

[JimmyH]

Supposing someone did elevate the confessions above Scripture, wouldn't this make him "not confessional enough" rather than "too confessional"?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

Actually wouldn't that make them not confessional at all ?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Agreed; time for a break.

I'm somewhat surprised to see that this discussion is still going on, because the yes/no answer seems simple enough to me:

Either... the confessions are the ultimate good, above the Bible and even above God himself.

Or... the confessions are NOT the ultimate good, in which case it is possible to be too confessional if one treats them as the ultimate good. The fact that such idolatry would be inconsistent with the confessions themselves does not necessarily mean it can't happen. People are inconsistent all the time, especially when it comes to heart-worship vs. stated beliefs.

So, it is possible to be too confessional. This fact should in no way feel threatening to those of us who deeply value the confessions. It doesn't mean their great importance for teaching, defending the faith, giving a foundation to the church, etc. is diminished in any way. In fact, a healthy awareness that we must guard against turning them into idols is a confessional strength. Holding on to such an awareness lets us be rigorous and enthusiastic users of the confessions without worry that such constant use will become idolatry.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Lest there be misunderstanding, I heartily affirm a closed canon at the present time. But it is tradition, not scripture. Hence I hold to it a wee bit looser than the deity of Jesus.

I suggest you read this book: Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books: Michael J. Kruger: 9781433505003: Amazon.com: Books

There are several theological reasons why this would be impossible that you are not carefully considering. Your very statement assumes a Community Reception model of the Canon - that is that the Canon is established by tradition rather than having its own "existence" apart from the community and how the teachings of the Apostles would have been providentially received by the Church. Speculating as to whether the Lord may have hidden Revelation from the community of faith for 2000 years is a violation of Deuteronomy 29:29.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would also point out that it is impossible to actually approach the Scriptures themselves without some sort of Confession. The question is whether the Confession arises from the Scriptures or not.

Let me give one simple example. In order to even start with the Scriptures one has to determine what the extent of the Canon is. How do we know that the 27 Book we have in the NT Canon are Scripture to begin with? Before I can even begin to read 2 Peter, I have to have some commitment to how I know that 2 Peter is Canonical.

Do I defer to the fact that the Church recognizes it as Canon as the grounding for my confidence?

Do I use the modern methods of historical scholarship to determine whether it was written by the Apostle?

Or is there a confession, which arises out of the living Word itself, that allows the Church to hear the voice of Her Bridegroom? Do I confess that the Apostles were appointed by Christ to deliver a foundation upon which I can now receive, with the Church, the extent of the Canon? Do I have confidence that the Scriptures are self-authenticating and that, though their Providential reception was not a straight path, I have confidence that the Lord would not leave His Bride without a firm foundation?

You see, it is nice to assume that one can just go to the Scriptures without some Confession but, if one carefully examines the issue, one will find that it is impossible to even begin the process without a Confession that either arises from the Scriptures with the community of faith or begins in the autonomous mind of the reader.