(or why we need creeds)
W. G. T. Shedd stood courageously by Benjamin Warfield’s side in opposing revisions to the Westminster Standards. Shedd explains below why appealing to the Bible or to being biblical is unpersuasive. It also suggests that the individual with his Bible does not have the status (i.e. power) of God’s ordinance (WCF 31.2) that the assemblies and synods that produce creeds do. As good Presbyterians, we should always recognize that creedal formation takes place by committee. The same goes for revision.
Of course Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. But this particular way of appealing to Scripture is specious and fallacious. In the first place, it assumes that Calvinism is not Scriptural, an assumption which the Presbyterian Church has never granted. . . . Secondly, this kind of appeal to Scripture is only an appeal to Scripture as the reviser understands it. Scripture properly means the interpretation of Scripture; that is, the contents of Scripture as reached by human investigation and exegesis. Creeds, like commentaries, are Scripture studied and explained, and not the mere abstract and unexplained book as it lies on the counter of the Bible House. The infallible Word of God is expounded by the fallible mind of man, and hence the variety of expositions embodied in the denominational creeds. But every interpreter claims to have understood the Scriptures correctly, and, consequently, claims that his creed is Scriptural, and if so, that it is the infallible truth of God. The Arminian appeals to the Articles of Wesley as the rule of faith, because he believes them to be the true explanation of the inspired Bible. . . .
The Calvinist appeals to the creeds of Heidelberg, Dort, and Westminster as the rule of faith, because he regards them as the accurate exegesis of the revealed Word of God. By the Bible these parties, as well as all others who appeal to the Bible, mean their understanding of the Bible. There is no such thing as that abstract Scripture to which the revisionist of whom we are speaking appeals; that is, Scripture apart from any and all interpretation of it. When, therefore, the advocate of revision demands that the Westminster Confession be conformed to Scripture , he means conformation to Scripture as he and those like him read and explain it. It is impossible to make abstract Scripture the rule of faith for either an individual or a denomination. No Christian body has ever subscribed to the Bible merely as a printed book. A person who should write his name on the blank leaf of the Bible and say that his doctrinal belief was between the covers, would convey no definite information as to his creed. (Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, pp. 145-46)
Old Life 
Your quote needs more context to be persuasive. Shedd speaks of “this particular way … this kind of way of appealing to Scripture.” What way? What is he arguing against, specifically?
Here’s what I’m arguing for:
(1) The Confession contains by observation, not by definition, the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures.
Therefore, when an elder takes a vow affirming that the Confession contains the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures, he needs to be familiar enough with the Scriptures to be able to make that affirmation in good faith.
(2) That “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. ” Therefore, in the case of doctrinal controversy, it is necessary to go back and do the exegesis. That’s non-optional.
(3) That “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
(4) That “All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
So to the extent that Confessionalism stays within these boundaries, there’s no problem. If however Confessionalists start making creeds “the final authority”, then there is a problem.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, I have no trouble saying the Bible is the ultimate authority. I have no trouble as well admitting when I am introduced as a theologian sometimes when I speak that my own communion would hoot and howl over me being introduced as a theologian. Why? I don’t know Greek and Hebrew anymore. You need to know that to rightly minister the word and to do theology.
But what about when it comes to defining a tradition? Are creeds useful for determining what it means to be Reformed? Or is it a question of what I as a Reformed person thinks the Bible teaches and then my teaching is what is Reformed. Methinks this is the way it goes for something approaching biblicism. There is not a sense of standing in a tradition that has already been defined a certain way, and having an obligation as a member of that communion, to pass it on.
As I said in the other thread. What about the corporate witness of the church? Does a communion have a singular witness? Well, yes, it does. It is the confession and catechisms. Do we reflect these in our ministries? Not really. They are more a means for passing tests than they are the content of our communions’ witness.
This is what confessionalism is about — creeds a defining the public witness of the churches in the past — thus distinguishing Reformed from Lutherans, Baptists, etc., and creed defining the public witness of the church in the present because we are still Reformed churches.
LikeLike
Perhaps there can be a distinction between those who are broadly Reformed and those who are strictly Reformed?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Just to follow up on what DGH said, if you allow the desire to be biblical to be the defining aspect of being Reformed without regard to the Reformed confessions or the Reformed traditions, the word becomes useless. Everyone’s Reformed. Martin Luther is Reformed since he was commited to being biblical.
And what if we did that with other words. Suppose we reduced being a doctor to be a person concerned about the health of the human body. That would solve America’s health care problem by creating millions of new doctors, since now everyone who is concerned about the health of the body is a doctor.
LikeLike
Actually, you’re mistaken about the view. I think you can see that I’ve studied, to the best of my ability, the traditions of the Reformed faith. We aren’t talking about the Lone Ranger, me and my Bible. We’re talking about doing theology in community … does the process ground itself in the Confession, OR does it ground itself in the Scripture, using the Confession as the “help to faith” that it describes itself as?
As I mentioned to Zrim, we’re talking about the difference between Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 here, NOT Tradition 0 v. Tradition 2.
@RL: The desire to be Biblical is the gateway to becoming Reformed. Actually becoming Reformed requires that you take a bucket of salt to your own exegesis, and learn from those who have come before.
In so doing, though, you do not absolutize the Confession — after all, the Confession forbids this! — but instead always continue to read Scripture with an eye towards the Confession.
I don’t know what else to say. This is my own personal journey to becoming Reformed on display. I became Presbyterian because I thought the Scripture taught what the Confession teaches. So it’s not like I’m casting on iota of doubt on the content of the Confession.
Rather, I’m casting doubt on a theological method that appears to the outside eye to raise the Confession to an authoritative level that is parallel to the Scripture.
Or even above, if we’re going to use “biblicist” as a dirty word.
So to come back to you, RL: suppose we used the word “doctor” to mean “those who learn the traditions of doctors who came before”, rather than “those who scientifically examine the body in order to learn how to heal it.”
Wouldn’t doctoring become ingrown? And in fact, there has been a revolution in medicine in the last few decades around exactly the latter approach. Google for “Evidence-Based Medicine.”
I’m not arguing for rejecting the Reformed traditions. I’m arguing that everyone should prove those traditions for themselves by reading the Scripture.
JRC
LikeLike
That’s clearly on the table. But I’m arguing that some forms of “strictly Reformed”, if not carefully nuanced, are not Reformed.
LikeLike
>I don’t know Greek and Hebrew anymore. You need to know that to rightly minister the word and to do theology.
Oh, my. The priesthood of scholars taking the place of the Magisterium.
This is what the modern version industry and their products has smuggled into the Protestant tent. “See how incredibly bad these modern translations are? See how full of holes the manuscripts they’re based on are? You need an accredited *scholar priest* to interpret it for you, Protestants!! Ha, ha, you thought you got rid of the Beast? No way! Not if we have anything to say about it!!!”
What was Luther thinking? Just showing off. Tyndale as well. Served him right getting strangled and burned for his efforts. (Was he really strangled first? That’s what they say!!)
Yeah, what did all those Christians know in the Reformation. They didn’t have *accredited* seminaries to give them pieces of paper for teaching them Hebrew and Greek to such a level of depth that they forget it! Hey, who can remember See It and Say It in Biblical Greek, 1st Level? That’s a monster of a book!
By the way, remember: respect those official gatherings of Christians when they are drawing up creeds and confessions and catechisms. If they are translating the Word of God and if that translation withstands the tribunal of generations of Bereans and the tribunal of Time itself, hey, no matter, it’s not a man-made document, so no big.
And, you, John Bunyan, stop preaching to people. And stop writing on the subject of doctrine. You’re too ignorant. You don’t have a degree from an accredited seminary. Forget what John Owen said about you too. He’s suspect in our eyes anyway. Always has been.
LikeLike
Do you oppose revisions to the WCF? In principle, I mean? Strange.
The WCF itself says that “all synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both.”
The whole Church speaking synodically or by council is the voice of truth? Not so, and it’s folly to call those who disagree “biblicists”. How sad, it’s a term of derision on this blog.
LikeLike
Jeff, I wasn’t necessarily referring to you as a Lone Ranger. But Frame’s writing on the RPW strikes me as lonely. Plus, you have been carrying a lot of his water here.
Eliza, so what would you like to change about the WCF? I am not at all opposed to revision. The American revisions of 1787 did in fact bring the STandards into conformity with the Bible’s teaching about the state.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m still processing how he gets from here to there. It seems self-evident to me that drama is not sermon …
But still and all, the larger point of sola scriptura is that we don’t become fan-boys of any teacher. Certain of Frame’s concerns I’ll carry all day long; others will have to wait for the bell-hop.
For my part, I would like to see the WCF be clarified on the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the Covenants of Grace and Works. I’m not angling for this change or that; but that the church would speak with a clearer and more unified voice on the issue.
JRC
LikeLike
Christian,
DGH is correct about the need for Ministers of the Word to be able to read the Bible in its original languages.
We are not talking about whether someone could have been a pastor in the 8th century without being able read Hebrew. We always need to be as faithful as possible within the circumstances in which Christ has placed us. However, in North America, there is ready access to learning Greek and Hebrew for those who are willing to put the work in. Failure to require candidates for ministry to be able to read the Bible in its original languages simply reveals a lack of devotion to God’s word.
Three thoughts:
1. A significant amount of the best Biblical scholarship requires skill in Greek and Hebrew to understand. If anyone tells you that a pastor can get by in this area simply with language tools he or she doesn’t understand how languages work.
2. You don’t need a degree from an accredited seminary to learn Greek and Hebrew (not that there is anything wrong with getting one). I would gladly teach any candidate for ministry (or current pastor) in my area Biblical Greek and Hebrew for free. I’m sure that I’m not alone on this.
3. You quote Luther – but Luther strongly disagreed with your position. He worked hard to ensure that the Biblical languages were taught to ministers. You could probably find out more about this by simply putting “Luther” and “Biblical Languages” into any internet search engine.
David
LikeLike
>You quote Luther – but Luther strongly disagreed with your position. He worked hard to ensure that the Biblical languages were taught to ministers. You could probably find out more about this by simply putting “Luther†and “Biblical Languages†into any internet search engine.
The point is Luther translated the Bible into German for a reason. This gets also to the subject of a terminal point of understanding. The Bible in sound translation from the received manuscripts gives one the possibility to come to complete understanding. The scholars associated with the modern versions don’t understand this. And the scholars who consciously or unconsciously push the priesthood of scholars notion resent this fact that it is possible for a born again Christian to not be ‘always learning and never able to come to understanding of the truth.’
To be always learning and never able to come to understanding of the truth is where the devil wants everybody, forever.
The fact is if the situation existed now that there were no sound translation of the Bible from the received texts (Greek *and* Hebrew that is) and that doctrine was a mush of the traditions of man every born again Christian would be becoming a true scholar of the languages and of the Bible for discovering and to proclaim true biblical doctrine. That is what Christians do. What the priesthood of scholars of our day do is undermine the truth in all the inane ways secular academics undermine truth. Babble for the sake of babbling. Vain and juvenile intellectualism. And all mediocre. And ultimately with low valuation for the Word of God itself, because the Word of God rebukes it.
LikeLike
dgh: I don’t want to change anything about the WCF. If pressed to find absolutely anything I don’t agree with, I would take John Murray’s position that the section on divorce is unclear. The Bible in I Cor. teaches that desertion of a believer by an unbeliever is grounds for an ensuing divorce, but the WCF just says “such willful desertion…” without regard to whether believers or unbelievers are involved. But ours is not a creed or confession-making age.
My point is that it’s folly to oppose revision in principle, esp. given the WCF’s own statements on synods and councils.
LikeLike
Eliza, who said they were opposed to revision on principle? The opposition is to not allowing the creeds to define Reformed identity or the corporate witness of the church. The issue is whether the creeds inform who we are, or are they merely dictionaries we go to when we don’t know a definition?
LikeLike
Darryl
I’ve had questions with this issue for some time but I have to say I agree with you. The idea “Reformed” has become as flabby and flexible as the word “evangelical” which actually used to mean something. It seems that the only way for us, that is individual denominations, to determine whether a particular doctrine is reformed is to go by our confessions. From that we can then draw conclusions concerning individual doctrines and the people who hold them.
The difficulty comes in applying this principle historically (not to the present day – if a man is out of accord with the confession there are prescribed ways of dealing with it). Was John Murray reformed? Well, not on the covenant of works he wasn’t. He was outside the Reformed camp on that, even though he affirmed the substance of it and would have, I’m certain, resisted the modern errors which have been laid at his feet. Was the rest of Murray’s theology reformed – to my knowledge, yes. (He was inconsistent in denying the covenant of works but getting federal theology right.) So Murray is unusual. Norman Shepherd’s doctrine of justification and his conflation of justification and sanctification sets him outside both the confessional and reformed camps – no room in either camp for him. So there is a difference between the two.
But in terms of ecclesiastically defining what is reformed, it must be based on the confession as it stands, not what “Divine X” held to at the Assembly, or some other such reason. (Whether we want a broader category of what is historically reformed to include such exceptions is open to debate!) The content of the Confession is after all what made it into the finally version, not the exceptions and other views which were around at the time. I see no reason why that principle should not stand for us today.
Matt
LikeLike
I have a question for all of you pastor-scholars. How many exceptions to the Standards can a minister take within the NAPARC community and remain fit for ministry and in good standing? Is there a hierarchy of exceptions (i.e. Covenant of Works versus The Lord’s Day)?
LikeLike
Matt, you’ll not get an argument from me. There is a Latin phrase — escapes me now — for receiving the Confession as it was received at the time of its adoption. That means when the OPC adopted the Standards, they had a different understanding (on minor points, I think) than the Assembly. I can certainly live with this and think we need to.
But when it comes to history and the point that Scott is making, you are trying to discern what it meant to be Reformed in the sixteenth century. In that case, the historical one, you are again look at the sense in which the Reformed churches adopted those creeds.
Mike, the answer to your question is not that simple. Each presbytery, at least in the OPC and PCA, has the power of licensure and ordination. That means that each presbytery might have its own standards for taking exceptions. BTW, the OPC doesn’t have the formal practice of taking exceptions that the PCA seems to. That’s not to say that OP ministers don’t have reservations or explain them at ordination exams. But I do not know of a formal apparatus for listing said reservations and keeping them on file.
LikeLike
animus imponentis, spirit of the imposition (roughly rendered)
LikeLike