"Solo Confession"?

[Gryphonette]

Something about the FV/AA arguments has been making me squirm for a while, and not just the content of them....it'd be more ephemeral than that.

One of Rich's "hardball" questions that he'd suggested be posed to Doug Wilson (what happened with that interview, BTW? anyone hear it?) helped the cause of the squirm to be clarified for me.

Over the years as I've read the various FV/AA aficionados promote and defend their distinctive doctrines, the hands-down most common defense offered is that their interpretation can be gleaned from the WCF. Apparently they are convinced that so long as whatever they are saying has in some way been arrived at via the WCF, they are "subscribing" to it, so leave 'em alone.

Huh.

Yet it's not at all uncommon to read one of them castigate Baptists, for example, as practicing "solo Scriptura", generally translated to mean "Just me and my Bible." Private interpretation without reference to how the Church has historically and traditionally interpreted it.

You have probably figured out where I'm going with this.

Presbyterian denominations have a "traditional interpretation" of the WCF, do they not? Clearly it's possible to take that document and, depending upon which statements are given more weight, arrive at varying doctrinal positions. One belongs to this Presbyterian denomination because it interprets the WCF in this way, while someone else joins that Presbyterian denomination for it interprets the WCF in that way. If there's one thing I've picked up from years of hanging around Presbyterians, it's that while the differences might be subtle - particularly to a nonpresbyterian - they are definitely present, and often viewed as important.

Or am I mistaken? It's always possible, my not having ever been Presbyterian myself.

Assuming I'm not, though, it seems unreasonable for those espousing the FV/AA to take the stance that they are entitled to apply their own private interpretation of the WCF, never mind the historic, traditional interpretation of their denomination, particularly considering how condemning they can be about private interpretation of the Bible.

I'm puzzled as to why they would believe it's acceptable for them to insist upon the right to privately interpret the WCF, the foundational document of their denomination, while simultaneously - and often quite emphatically - denouncing others who disagree with them as having descended to the depths of "solo Scriptura."

Solo Scriptura is bad, but solo Confession is okay?

Speaking for myself, I don't think so.

 

[AV1611]

I hear what you are saying and yet the WCF states quite clearly that it is not an authority to be used to judge:

Chapter 1, Article X. "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

 

[Gryphonette]

Not that I would in any way, shape, or form disagree with that, mind, but I'd be a bit at a loss as to what the point of the WCF is, then. If it can be essentially overridden by anyone who insists their way of interpreting either the Confession or Scripture itself is more accurate than the Confession, doesn't that rather kick the legs out from under the main reason for a "confessional" denomination's existence?

 

[turmeric]

The Scripture should be our rule for faith and practice - and the FV/AA people are challenging the meaning of that.

I see what you're saying, though; it's an interesting point. Kinda reminds me of people who think the Constitution is a "living document."

 

[AV1611]

Not that I would in any way, shape, or form disagree with that, mind, but I'd be a bit at a loss as to what the point of the WCF is, then.

Or any confessional document for that matter. It is this question/issue which has caused me to re-think the purpose of confessional documents. I hold to the Thirty Nine Articles which makes all those who do a denomination and so provides a common ground but Scripture is a trump card so to speak and overrides the confessional document.

 

[Gryphonette]

But "Scripture as trump card" is the tool the ECUSA, PCUSA, et al have used to gut their respective denominations of divine truth, It seems to me.

When a particular verse is taken as normative - say, "God is love" - and is used to pound all other verses referring to His wrath into pitiful little puddles, those doing so declare they are holding to Scripture.

 

[AV1611]

But "Scripture as trump card" is the tool the ECUSA, PCUSA, et al have used to gut their respective denominations of divine truth, It seems to me

Obviously it must be used correctly. God is love but he is also justice etc. (I know you agree but was just making the point).

If a Confession taught X but Scripture taught Y we would be duty bound to disagree with the Confession.

 

[Gryphonette]

Oh, very good!

Kinda reminds me of people who think the Constitution is a "living document."

Amazing how the more the Constitution "lives", the deader our freedoms seem to become.

We love to tweak, don't we, though? If there's one thing in the world we humans find nigh unto impossible it's to just leave something alone.

Or as my mother says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But that's no fun. Always we pick at the tiny frayed area, and almost inevitably wind up creating a whacking big frayed spot, sometimes to the point of unraveling the whole thing.

Tweaking and improving the Constitution. Tweaking and improving the WCF.

Oh, yeah. That's a good plan.

 

[AV1611]

And I thought our moto was reformada, semper reformanda?

 

[Gryphonette]

You know, I've never quite gotten the point of that particular slogan. I know what it means, but the practical applicability has eluded me.

 

[AV1611]

You know, I've never quite gotten the point of that particular slogan.

It simply means that we are to test everything against the Scriptures. So whilst the WCF is good it is not perfect and can be reformed closer to the word of God...can't it?

 

[Gryphonette]

It simply means that we are to test everything against the Scriptures. So whilst the WCF is good it is not perfect and can be reformed closer to the word of God...can't it?

Theoretically I'm sure you're right, but based upon past experience the likelihood of the WCF being "improved" through a little judicious tweaking seems remote.

Come to that, why stop at the WCF? Heaven knows the various creeds omitted quite a bit most of us would say really ought to be included. Why not put those on the table as well, as long as we're tweaking and reforming and improving historic confessions?

You know how it goes....repaint the window sills in the kitchen and the next thing you know you're steaming off the old wallpaper.

I clearly recall the Scriptural shenanigans that went on in an effort to haul the Episcopal church here in the USA out of its "error" of patriarchy. Keep in mind, all those "improvements" made in the ECUSA and many other mainline denominations were done with a reformational zeal.

To be honest, evaluating the result of the "reformations" of the past half-century, I'd be strongly in favor of changing the motto to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[AV1611]

Theoretically I'm sure you're right, but based upon past experience the likelihood of the WCF being "improved" through a little judicious tweaking seems remote.

Come to that, why stop at the WCF? Heaven knows the various creeds omitted quite a bit most of us would say really ought to be included. Why not put those on the table as well, as long as we're tweaking and reforming and improving historic confessions?

You know how it goes....repaint the window sills in the kitchen and the next thing you know you're steaming off the old wallpaper.

I clearly recall the Scriptural shenanigans that went on in an effort to haul the Episcopal church here in the USA out of its "error" of patriarchy. Keep in mind, all those "improvements" made in the ECUSA and many other mainline denominations were done with a reformational zeal.

To be honest, evaluating the result of the "reformations" of the past half-century, I'd be strongly in favor of changing the motto to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I am just glad I adhere to the Thirty Nine Articles, Lambeth Articles and the Canons of Dordt.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

It's not that confessions have no authority. There's a difference between ultimate and penultimate authority.

A confession as a constitutional document has real, penultimate authority. Everyone always quotes WCF 10 as if that's the last word, but there is also 31.2 which says:

II. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.

This is real, if penultimate authority. It was a synod/assembly that formed the WCF. That document has genuine authority on all who subscribe it.

The question is how does one subscribe it? Honestly, dishonestly? In good faith, bad faith, or no faith? "Insofar as" it is biblical (quatenus - who gets to say what "insofar as" is?) or "because" it is biblical (quia - the earliest Reformed approach to subscription).

rsc

 

[bookslover]

It simply means that we are to test everything against the Scriptures. So whilst the WCF is good it is not perfect and can be reformed closer to the word of God...can't it?

Of course it can. The secondary standards are not infallible, having been written by men not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It should always be assumed going in that the secondary standards can be improved.

What's scary to me is that there are some in the Reformed camp (by no means all) who think too highly of these documents. On at least two occasions, I've people tell me that not only can these documents not be changed, they can't even be questioned. Fortunately, that is very much a minority view (the authors themselves of the standards would vigorously disagree!), but it illustrates my point.

In some circles, too, I've noticed a tendency, in theological discussion, to go to the standards first, rather than the Scriptures. I appreciate that the standards are a very convenient summary of the things we believe. But I believe it's important to always go to the Scriptures first.

The secondary standards (whichever ones one holds to) are excellent summaries (as I've said) - they wouldn't have lasted for more than 300 years if they weren't. They aren't any less than that - but they aren't any more than that, either.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think some of you are missing an excellent point that was made in the OP. Nobody has argued that the Confessions are infallible or cannot be reformed. The issue is this: What is the role of private interpretation within the context of a larger Church body?

Solo-Scriptura is the idea that there exists no authority between the words of Scripture and Rich for him to determine the proper meaning of Scripture. If my interpretation differs, I can merely point to the fact that I believe in "Scripture Alone" for my authority and don't need a Church at all to tell me what it means. Adultery? Well I read the Scriptures to be saying that it's OK. Elders in my Church have no authority to compell me to submit to the proper interpretation of the Word of God because nothing stands between me and the Bible.

That is not the Reformed tradition. Confessions, as Dr. Clark has noted, form a real authority where the Church council has met and formed what is the acceptable understanding of the Scriptures. Can the documents be reformed? Yes, but not by me. They need to be reformed by the Church. If I adopt them, as a minister, making a Godly oath to uphold them then I must submit to their doctrine excepting those portions which the Church has allowed me to take exception to.

What I do not have the right to do, however, is re-interpret what the Confessions mean where they confess something. I am not a Church council, no matter how clever I am or no matter how many books I've read. Further, if I've taken oath to teach the system of doctrine contained therein then it is the gravest sin to do otherwise until released from that oath. Now I can claim I am not but God will be the final Judge of all things.

Some may find this to be Roman Catholic: what do you mean the Church can say what the proper meaning of the Word of God is? The difference is that the Church stands under the Word of God and, though it is the interpreter, it is not infallible in this role. It need not be, however. Imagine you're a father who is commanding your son to do something. May you be in error and still require obedience of him on certain points? In a million different cases, yes. In some cases, no but those are the exceptions. Authority need not be infallible to be real. What we have lost is the ability to make Godly appeal to authority, to labor patiently, not dividing, but working constructively within the Church to reform, if necessary. We have lost the ability to submit when it's not something we would do. We believe we have the right to hold and to teach every conviction even when the Church has told us not to. It is rebellion, it is schismatic and it is not of God. In fact, it is rebellion even when you're right on a disputable point of doctrine. A son has no right to slap his father over an error that his father has made.

Thus, Anne is absolutely right. These men are like independents. They claim to be Presbyterians and make fun of Baptists for the way they handle government and Scripture but that's exactly how they handle things. They lack the Godly patience and maturity that a minister is supposed to posses. They believe that their brilliant minds, knowledge of Church history, knowledge of language, or special insight gives them a pass in the area of submission to authority.

It does not. And God will judge such schismatics.

 

[Gryphonette]

[awed] Wow. Yes. Exactly.



What Rich said really was what I meant.

Sure sounded a lot better when he said it, though.

Rich, you just always feel free to come along behind me and tell the nice people what I meant to say.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yet it's not at all uncommon to read one of them castigate Baptists, for example, as practicing "solo Scriptura", generally translated to mean "Just me and my Bible." Private interpretation without reference to how the Church has historically and traditionally interpreted it.

One of the major issues with 'them' is that they are saying that historically, the reformed held to these ideas. i.e Murray, Calvin, and a few others often quoted.

 

[AV1611]

Some may find this to be Roman Catholic: what do you mean the Church can say what the proper meaning of the Word of God is? The difference is that the Church stands under the Word of God and, though it is the interpreter, it is not infallible in this role.

But we must allow them to be subject to change as greater light is shed upon the issues. To say that the Holy Ghost hath led us into all truth and this is contained in the WCF and since then the Holy Ghost has stopped leading us into truth is, in my opinion, absurd.

However, there is indeed a role for confessional documents as a point of discipline. Take for example the Bishop of Durham - the Rt Revd N. T. Wright. He openly denies Article 11 of the Thirty Nine Articles which relates to justification. The Articles define what the CofE believes and so if he does not agree with them then he should leave (the sooner the better as far as I am concerned).

 

[Scott Bushey]

But we must allow them to be subject to change as greater light is shed upon the issues. To say that the Holy Ghost hath led us into all truth and this is contained in the WCF and since then the Holy Ghost has stopped leading us into truth is, in my opinion, absurd.

However, there is indeed a role for confessional documents as a point of discipline. Take for example the Bishop of Durham - the Rt Revd N. T. Wright. He openly denies Article 11 of the Thirty Nine Articles which relates to justification. The Articles define what the CofE believes and so if he does not agree with them then he should leave (the sooner the better as far as I am concerned).

Richard,
So you believe that there is more information God has yet to reveal to His church doctrinally?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But we must allow them to be subject to change as greater light is shed upon the issues. To say that the Holy Ghost hath led us into all truth and this is contained in the WCF and since then the Holy Ghost has stopped leading us into truth is, in my opinion, absurd.

Richard,

You really must learn to read more carefully. I did not claim that the WCF is un-reformable. Read again.

If you're saying that the Holy Spirit is still revealing new information then that's a different matter.

 

[AV1611]

So you believe that there is more information God has yet to reveal to His church doctrinally?

Not if we are talking about continuous revelation for that (revelation) ended with the close of the Canon. However Christ has given his Church teachers and he has also promised to lead the Church ino all truth. So I would accept doctrinal development as being legitimate. I hope that clears up any confusion.

You really must learn to read more carefully. I did not claim that the WCF is un-reformable. Read again.

It was not my intention to imply that you had rather I was reiterating your point "Can the documents be reformed? Yes, but not by me. They need to be reformed by the Church." My appologies

 

[Scott Bushey]

Not if we are talking about continuous revelation for that (revelation) ended with the close of the Canon. However Christ has given his Church teachers and he has also promised to lead the Church into all truth. So I would accept doctrinal development as being legitimate. I hope that clears up any confusion.

What doctrines would the church need more "development" in? Why would they need more development?

 

[AV1611]

What doctrines would the church need more "development" in? Why would they need more development?

The covenant for starters. But really we must make sure that we ensure that what our creeds teach is actually what Scripture teaches. When St. Paul was teaching the galatians would he have explained the Trinity as it has been developed doctrinally? We should improve upon what has gone before where possible.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The covenant for starters. But really we must make sure that we ensure that what our creeds teach is actually what Scripture teaches. When St. Paul was teaching the galatians would he have explained the Trinity as it has been developed doctrinally? We should improve upon what has gone before where possible.

I disagree. Paul knew the things of God much clearer than any of us. In that, I believe he taught the doctrine even more accurately than us today.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

[turmeric]

Now, Scott, I know that wink wasn't in the original!

 

[Gryphonette]

One of the major issues with 'them' is that they are saying that historically, the reformed held to these ideas. i.e Murray, Calvin, and a few others often quoted.

My point, however, isn't whether or not some Reformed at some time have ever held to their ideas so much as whether their particular denominations have historically and traditionally held them.

An easy illustration is whether the Church is described as visible/invisible versus historical/eschatological.

To be fair to them, the historical/eschatological theory is certainly an interesting one, and might even have an awful lot going for it, theologically speaking.

Only problem is, that's not how the PCA, for instance, or Presbyterianism in general, has ever described the Church.

They're citing the Reformers in the same way the ECF's will be searched and quoted to support prayers to the dead or something like that. Just because there's a verse in Revelation that could sound like believers on earth praying to believers in glory, and just because some ECF's wrote stuff that at least appears to support that belief, doesn't mean it's incumbent upon the rest of us to accept praying to the dead as a valid doctrine.

It's not what OUR faith tradition holds.

If the new "standard" for Reformed denominations is that anything can be taught from the pulpit so long as the one teaching it personally believes it to be biblical, not against the WCF, plus can dredge up a citation or two from Calvin or Murray that sounds as if it's in agreement, then be assured I'll be over here in my nondenominational Bible church keeping a seat for y'all, for your denominations are going to fall apart in short order.

Remember, God is a God of order, 'tis true, but we live in a fallen world due to sin, where disorder rules unless we strive hard to keep it at bay. Permitting such a lax standard for what is taught to exist is guaranteed to lead to doctrinal disorder, which will eventually be the end of your respective denominations.

 

[Machaira]

And I thought our moto was reformada, semper reformanda?

Regarding this, I just heard Doug Wilson as he was being examined, lament that "reformada, semper reformanda" is a Reformed rallying cry until someone actually attempts it. This is absurd seeing that the FV proponents are really talking about a major overhaul of Reformed doctrine, not reform. Do these men really think that we have been so out of whack with Biblical doctrine for the past 300+ years that no one noticed until they came along?

(I know you're not arguing in favor of FV. I'm just musing here.)

 

[bookslover]

I think some of you are missing an excellent point that was made in the OP. Nobody has argued that the Confessions are infallible or cannot be reformed. The issue is this: What is the role of private interpretation within the context of a larger Church body?

Solo-Scriptura is the idea that there exists no authority between the words of Scripture and Rich for him to determine the proper meaning of Scripture. If my interpretation differs, I can merely point to the fact that I believe in "Scripture Alone" for my authority and don't need a Church at all to tell me what it means. Adultery? Well I read the Scriptures to be saying that it's OK. Elders in my Church have no authority to compell me to submit to the proper interpretation of the Word of God because nothing stands between me and the Bible.

That is not the Reformed tradition. Confessions, as Dr. Clark has noted, form a real authority where the Church council has met and formed what is the acceptable understanding of the Scriptures. Can the documents be reformed? Yes, but not by me. They need to be reformed by the Church. If I adopt them, as a minister, making a Godly oath to uphold them then I must submit to their doctrine excepting those portions which the Church has allowed me to take exception to.

What I do not have the right to do, however, is re-interpret what the Confessions mean where they confess something. I am not a Church council, no matter how clever I am or no matter how many books I've read. Further, if I've taken oath to teach the system of doctrine contained therein then it is the gravest sin to do otherwise until released from that oath. Now I can claim I am not but God will be the final Judge of all things.

Some may find this to be Roman Catholic: what do you mean the Church can say what the proper meaning of the Word of God is? The difference is that the Church stands under the Word of God and, though it is the interpreter, it is not infallible in this role. It need not be, however. Imagine you're a father who is commanding your son to do something. May you be in error and still require obedience of him on certain points? In a million different cases, yes. In some cases, no but those are the exceptions. Authority need not be infallible to be real. What we have lost is the ability to make Godly appeal to authority, to labor patiently, not dividing, but working constructively within the Church to reform, if necessary. We have lost the ability to submit when it's not something we would do. We believe we have the right to hold and to teach every conviction even when the Church has told us not to. It is rebellion, it is schismatic and it is not of God. In fact, it is rebellion even when you're right on a disputable point of doctrine. A son has no right to slap his father over an error that his father has made.

Thus, Anne is absolutely right. These men are like independents. They claim to be Presbyterians and make fun of Baptists for the way they handle government and Scripture but that's exactly how they handle things. They lack the Godly patience and maturity that a minister is supposed to posses. They believe that their brilliant minds, knowledge of Church history, knowledge of language, or special insight gives them a pass in the area of submission to authority.

It does not. And God will judge such schismatics.

Part of the problem is that Protestantism, and the Reformed church in particular, has no central doctrinal authority, like the Roman Catholic magisterium (or whatever they call it). Back in the earliest centuries after the canon was closed, those first four or five church councils of the early church fathers were considered authoritative because the church of the Roman Empire was small enough so that those early councils could speak authoritatively for everyone. But now the church is so large and fractured (how many microdenominations are there now among the Reformed?) that no one speaks authoritatively for anyone, anymore.

For example, the OPC could gather all its theologians together as a council and decide that X passage of Scripture should be interpreted in X fashion, or that X doctrine needs to be redefined in X manner, and that would be considered an authoritative ruling - but only within the OPC. The PCA could look at the OPC's conciliar decisions and say, "Well, that's nice for them, but we're not interested. We'll stick to the old way of interpreting that passage or doctrine."

Also, doctrinal understandings do change over time. A good example is eternal generation. The early church fathers thought it was a nifty way of protecting Christ's deity and of helping to explain the Trinity, but EG looks a lot less impressive now. Systematic theologians and other writers (Calvin, Boettner, Grudem, Reymond, Frame) have been increasingly unhappy with it for several decades now. Unfortunately, however, the Reformed churches don't have some sort of central theological authority (as I was saying) to come to a definitive conclusion about these things.

Just my

 

[Gryphonette]

"Part of the problem is that Protestantism, and the Reformed church in particular, has no central doctrinal authority, like the Roman Catholic magisterium (or whatever they call it)."

[wryly] Considering how helpful a "central doctrinal authority" has been for the RCC (assumption of Mary, anyone?), having one is clearly not a panacea for all doctrinal ills.

Human nature naturally gravitates to the "strong man" or king type of government ("We want a king like the other nations have!" cried the Israelites) which the LORD disapproves of ("You won't like it", He warned), but we also cannot seem to help gilding any and all lilies within reach.

So there's the RCC on the one hand, and myriad Protestant groups on the other hand.

Situation normal, In other words,. ;^)