Historical context of the Confessions.

[jwright82]

How much does the historical context in which the confessions were written affect how they are to be interpreted? Can a person be withen the words of the confession but against the historical position at the time in which the confession was written? I'm just curious about the general polocies that are used in this area of confessional interpretation and history, I am curious as to how much a legitimate interpretation is historically bound.

Now I believe that history is important and very useful quite a lot of the time in settling these matters but it seems that the issue at times could be become a little to complicated to be settled by history.

 

[toddpedlar]

It would help if you gave an example of what you have in mind. As you've so generically posed the question, I don't see how an answer is really going to be possible. It is absolutely critical that the confessions be understood in context of their history... and connected with that I can't see how you could support a position that is contrary to what was meant in the confessional statement in question, at the time of its writing, and claim that you're in line with the confession.

 

[SolaScriptura]

James - Of course it is possible to interpret the Confessions differently than did their authors. How do I know? Because people do precisely that with historical documents ranging from Plato to Shakespeare to the Constitution to Scripture itself.

Your question, as I see it, comes down to the role of authorial intent. Does it matter what the authors meant to say? Are we obligated to interpret a document as the authors intended? Or are we free to accept the language but ascribe our own meaning to those words?

 

[jwright82]

I refrain from giving any particuler example because the discussion will probally just get off track on the disagreements over that particuler issue and that will probably take over. So I will try to frame the question a little differently. When ministers take their ordination vows they vow to preach, teach, believe what ever the confession states they do not vow to preach, teach, believe a particuler group of people's beleifs on various subjects. Now again I think that history is very important that is one of the things that I love about being reformed. But with that said. Also with the disagreement among the framers of the confessions isn't it more important to to be guided by the words of the confession but using the opinions of the various men who framed these confessions as a good guide of where to start in our interpretation, thus puting history in a correct place?

Another angle might be this. All confessions that I have read use language in two ways. Very specifically and more broadly in nature. Specific language would be on topics such as Holy Scripture, Trinity, the two Natures of Christ, the way reformed confessions are worded on these topics is very specific in nature so there is only like one position on these topics that is confessional, there is rightfully no wiggle room. But on other topics there is more abstract, formal, and broader language used which is not so concretely exact, meaning there can be some difference of opinion and all parties involved are still withen the confessions. I am of the opinion that the choice in words was deliberate enough to know where and when broader language was more appropriate over specific language, making if I'm right the historical perspective possibly less important on certian issues than others. But I could be wrong, I hold no dogmatic views on this subject I only have questions.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

James - Of course it is possible to interpret the Confessions differently than did their authors. How do I know? Because people do precisely that with historical documents ranging from Plato to Shakespeare to the Constitution to Scripture itself.

Your question, as I see it, comes down to the role of authorial intent. Does it matter what the authors meant to say? Are we obligated to interpret a document as the authors intended? Or are we free to accept the language but ascribe our own meaning to those words?

You raise an excellant point, is it morally ok to deviate at all from the original views of the people who framed the confessions? I say original views because I believe they were smart enough to know where to be specific and where to allow for more concessions.

 

[jwright82]

If it's "okay" to interpret it in light of modern context without regard to the authorial intent then that defeats the purpose of having said Confession in the first place. Liken that to the "Judicial Review" liberties justices have taken with the Constitution. No, it's not okay anachronistically to interpret the Confession of Faith in ways that weren't intended by those who framed it. Of course, I suppose that's just my interpretive opinion.

Good post, I agree but I guess I like to rather look at the language used in the confession not so much in the history, but that is important too as I have said. I prefer to look at specific verses broad language use to indicate whether or not the authors intended to set parameters on a subject or very precise specific positions. We should always take every element of a confession seriously, including its historical setting, but what if they didn't feel that exactness in a certian area was necessary and more legitemate disagreement was alright on particuler issues and so the historical opinions of the framers might play less of role in these areas.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Doctrinal statements that are meant as public statements of belief depend on author intent and adopting intent if the document is being adopted by a body different than the drafting body. See Alan Strange's appendix "Animus imponentis from the OPC Report of the Committee on Creation Views" in his "Affirmation of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly," in The Confessional Presbyterian 4, 208ff; or see the OPC report itself from the 71st GA, 1659ff here. Since subscribing to doctrinal statements involve vows; see also WCF 22.4.

 

[jwright82]

Doctrinal statements that are meant as public statements of belief depend on author intent and adopting intent if the document is being adopted by a body different than the drafting body. See Alan Strange's appendix "Animus imponentis from the OPC Report of the Committee on Creation Views" in his "Affirmation of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly," in The Confessional Presbyterian 4, 208ff; or see the OPC report itself from the 71st GA, 1659ff here. Since subscribing to doctrinal statements involve vows; see also WCF 22.4.

Oh I don't deny authorial intent at all. Heres why. All the men involved in ,the lets be confessionally specific, WCF had opinions and interpretations for themselves. But what if the author's intent was to not to make history the only accebtable confession but relyed on the words of the confession to get their meaning across. That was possibly their intent hence I can possibly retain authorial intent.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Doctrinal statements that are meant as public statements of belief depend on author intent and adopting intent if the document is being adopted by a body different than the drafting body. See Alan Strange's appendix "Animus imponentis from the OPC Report of the Committee on Creation Views" in his "Affirmation of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly," in The Confessional Presbyterian 4, 208ff; or see the OPC report itself from the 71st GA, 1659ff here. Since subscribing to doctrinal statements involve vows; see also WCF 22.4.

Exactly, Chris. And thank you. It's not either-or, but both and. The authorial intent is primary, but if it is now being taken in a different sense than originally intended by some body, there is an added duty to either conform to or at least be candid about ones difference with the way that it is being taken by that body.