Perhaps the ruckus over Jason Stellman’s decision has passed but one response by Peter Leithart needs some attention, if only because it highlights a general problem in Reformed and Presbyterian circles. It is the way that Reformed Protestantism sits lightly with folks who are officers in Reformed and Presbyterian communions. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but also not to hide behind vagaries, this problem is not Leithart’s by himself. It is also part of the gift mix that John Frame and Tim Keller have bequeathed to many of their readers and fans.
The problem specifically is one identifying more with the Bible than tradition, relying more on exegesis than the common confession of a Reformed communion, exploring more existing church and intellectual concerns than mining paths trod by saints in the past.
Here is Leithart’s version of this impulse (in the context of Stellman’s decision):
Confessionalists, after all, place a great deal of emphasis on the tradition of Reformed theology, embodied especially in Reformed confessions. Throughout the debates of the past few years, I have presented mainly biblical arguments for my positions, and kept historical concerns subordinate. My opponents have typically been much more interested in testing my views by the Westminster Confession. The touchstone of their theology is a piece of the Reformed tradition as much as, and in some cases more than, Scripture. Confessionalists claim that the Confession provides standard exegesis of Scripture, to which Reformed theologians have to submit. Confessional Reformed theology thus has a natural affinity for Rome that biblicists like me don’t share. Confessionalists want the Confession to be a paper Pope. It’s not surprising that some find the paper Pope inadequate, and go searching for a live one. (If, as some will charge, Scripture is a paper Pope, it’s one whose ring I gladly kiss.)
Behind this Confessionalist elevation of tradition (in practice, over Scripture) is a broader tendency related to what I have critiqued elsewhere as “tragic metaphysics,” the notion that the original and old is necessarily preferable to the derived and the new. In its Trinitarian dogma, Christianity says the opposite: The Son, though He comes from the Father, is equal to the Father in every respect; in fact, there is no pure, unsupplemented origin, because there can be no Father without a Son. It says the opposite too in its eschatology: The golden age is not lost in the unrecoverable past but ahead of us in an eschatological future. Its Trinitarian theology and eschatology give Christian faith an open-endedness that can be unsettling. It’s unnerving to have to seek foundations in a city that is yet to come. (According to Fergus Kerr, this is exactly what Thomas says –Thomas is an “eschatological foundationalist.”)
When I read an argument like this I wonder whether someone like Leithart could just as easily minister in a Free Methodist Church as among Presbyterians. After all, lots of Protestants claim to be biblical and don’t let the past affect what is best for the church today. Or what about the Southern Baptist Convention? Is that set of congregations just as good as the United Reformed Churches? Or could it be that when push comes to shove, a fellow like Leithart really does identify with the Reformed tradition? That something really does differentiate Reformed from other Protestant communions?
I have no idea what Leithart’s response might be to a question about whether to minister as a Presbyterian or Lutheran. But I suspect, even hope, that he would say that Reformed Protestantism is superior in its teaching and practices to other Protestant churches.
If so, it would be a welcome development if he would pay back a little into the Presbyterian heritage fund. I mean, it is one thing to teach and defend the Reformed confessions and another to sit back and let your professional colleagues do it, all the while benefitting from at least some of their labors. It is also one thing to seek unity and discipline in a Reformed communion (through the heavy lifting of service at church assemblies) and allow the efforts of others to provide a cushion for you to do your own work. Furthermore, it is one thing to build on insights of generations of theologians and pastors (after all, Leithart isn’t starting from scratch, not even with his exegesis) and not show some gratitude for what has gone before.
Not everyone has to do the same amount of work or heritage maintenance. But is it too much to ask for everyone to be pulling in the same direction?
It is a free country, of course, and we have Reformed communions that are more or less confessional. So Leithart doesn’t have to do anything to keep up with his teaching, preaching, blogging, and writing. But for the sake of truth in advertising, identifying with his Presbyterian credentials, communicants, and past would certainly be desirable. It would even be responsible.
Postscript: I hesitated to employ “parasitic” in the post’s title but wanted to maintain the alliteration. “Free-riding” is obviously less inflammatory but at least I (always gracious) didn’t use “bloodsucking.”
Old Life 
Hair-splitting Alert
Dr. Hart,
I know that this is a blog, rather than a peer reviewed journal, but I think your statement “The problem specifically is one identifying more with the Bible than tradition” is subject to significant misunderstanding. Put that way, I as a Minister in the OPC would say that I identify more with the Bible than with tradition. Why would any Protestant want to identify equally with the Word of God and the words of man about the Word of God?
A better way to state the contrast is between my private interpretation of the Bible and the public interpretation of Scripture and development of Systematic Theology that is received and confessed by the Reformed Churches. It is the tendency of some Bible scholars to exalt their own private judgments (I don’t know Dr. Leithart and therefore am not directing this toward him) without sufficient regard to Historical, Systematic, and Confessional theology that is causing so much confusion among evangelicals today.
Best wishes,
David
LikeLike
David, split hair accepted and conditioned.
LikeLike
But surely there are those Confessional sorts who more or less do what Leithart says. Which, of course, raises other issues. On what authority are we to decide which confession we are to use? Should we go back to the writings of the Church Fathers or the Reformation Fathers. After all, the Reformers went back to the Church Fathers. Simply put, without a confession we are floating on theological waters with no anchor, but then we need to have an anchor for the confession itself.
LikeLike
Richard, surely we aren’t asking these questions once we have taken subscription vows to a Reformed confession? If you have these questions, you don’t pursue ordination.
LikeLike
“It is also one thing to seek unity and discipline in a Reformed communion (through the heavy lifting of service at church assemblies)…”
Of the 15-16 meetings of the PNW presbytery that have happened since I have been here, Peter has been at all but a few (i.e. missing no more than any other presbyter). He also serves on various committees, participates in floor discussions and deliberations, and even drinks beers with folks afterwards. He is no remora to the shark that is the PNW presbytery.
LikeLike
Richard, simply out, the confessions are footnoted with the Bible, which means the Bible is their anchor.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, surely we aren’t asking these questions once we have taken subscription vows to a Reformed confession? If you have these questions, you don’t pursue ordination.
RS: Not necessarily. While the truth does not change, men and their understandings do. It is also true that God just may be able to give more clarity on certain issues in the future.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, simply out, the confessions are footnoted with the Bible, which means the Bible is their anchor.
RS: So footnoting with references to the Bible means that those writing the confession are inerrant in their time and will be until eternity?
LikeLike
Richard, huh? Who said inerrant? Certainly not those of us who champion the 2k revisions. But the point is that the confessions are the result of exegetical (and historical) spade work.
LikeLike
When it comes to guys like Leithart, I always stumble on the “non-confessional reformed” tree in the road. One of the things that allows us reformed to be reformed is the confessions of Scripture to which we hold. You slip that mooring and we aren’t docked with Calvin and company anymore. Now we can lay anchor wherever the wind blows us…but maybe that’s the point.
LikeLike
Richard, men change their understandings and they let their brethren know about it. If you are an Edwards fan, you may be prone to congregationalist polity. But even in congregations where the members rule, a minister who changed his views might let the others know before simply publishing them, or before constantly tweaking the church’s covenant.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, men change their understandings and they let their brethren know about it. If you are an Edwards fan, you may be prone to congregationalist polity. But even in congregations where the members rule, a minister who changed his views might let the others know before simply publishing them, or before constantly tweaking the church’s covenant.
RS: I am just trying to communicate that confessions are not inerrant and perhaps they could be visited again and again rather than having them set in stone until eternity. Did the ministers who wrote Westminster ever change their views or were they immutable from 1647 until they died?
LikeLike
I think the key point missed in Leithart’s charge that Reformed confessionalism has a paper-papal affinity with Rome is HUMILITY. To be confessionally Reformed is to be humble; it is to accept sola Scriptura as an act that is not individualistic, but communal. It is to bow to the wisdom of one’s elders, who themselves are sitting with you at the foot of our common Scriptural master, and to recognize that all of our best interpretations are always that, interpretations and applications that are not perfect nor infallible, yet sufficient for pilgrims on the way.
The biblicist impulse IS the individualistic caricature of the Reformation that Rome likes to foist upon us.
Sadly, Reformed folks too often stumble into pride (don’t we all), and do a very poor job of defending their rather explicit and detailed confessions as humble testimony to the teaching of Scripture. Yes, we subscribe and are committed to these confessions; but we recognize that as important as they may be as guiding summary statements, they are not Scripture, but servants of Scripture.
And so, let us pray for a generation of officers and churchmen who are passionate and humble in their defense of sola Scriptura and the confessional teachings that have been bequeathed to us.
LikeLike
It seems that the issue is one he is avoiding. He didn’t take ordination vows on just the bible. He took them on the Westminster standards. In the Presbyterian tradition, the standards are the accepted teachings of scripture to be a Presbyterian. The “paper pope” is one he swore an oath to submit himself to. If they’re wrong, then step down. If the new is to be preferred to the old (which is a dangerous claim as the old has the luxury of being verified by more people through history than individual novelty) then don’t become ordained in any historical tradition. His response seems to me to be a last ditch effort to justify his willful departure from the documents he was ordained by. Bleh.
LikeLike
This is a real question. I don’t know the answer. Do the Scripture references given for the confessional statements have the same authority as the propositions themselves? If so, maybe we can figure out what the Bible references mean by reading back to see what the relevant part of the Confession says. But if different publications of the Confessions come with different proof-texts, then interpretation will be more difficult.
Heb. 12:14.
Can it be proven that the holiness without which we cannot see the Lord is that “more and more” variety of which the Confession speaks? Is our hope Christ’s perfect holiness plus also an incremental holiness? And if Christ’s holiness is not enough for access to holy God, just how much additional holiness will the Spirit need to give us?
LikeLike
mark mcculley: This is a real question. I don’t know the answer. Do the Scripture references given for the confessional statements have the same authority as the propositions themselves? If so, maybe we can figure out what the Bible references mean by reading back to see what the relevant part of the Confession says. But if different publications of the Confessions come with different proof-texts, then interpretation will be more difficult.
Heb. 12:14.
Can it be proven that the holiness without which we cannot see the Lord is that “more and more” variety of which the Confession speaks? Is our hope Christ’s perfect holiness plus also an incremental holiness? And if Christ’s holiness is not enough for access to holy God, just how much additional holiness will the Spirit need to give us?
RS: But the access to a holy God only makes us desire more holiness. It is not that we need more holiness for justification, but justification and union with Christ makes us hunger and long for more holiness.
LikeLike
Darryl, I take your point to be that if it weren’t for the confessionalists, there wouldn’t be Presby&Ref churches for guys like Leithart to leech off of. That may be.
But as a fellow confessionalist (overagainst a “more-or-less biblicist” like Leithart & Frame), I’d like to say more than that officers in Presby&Ref congregations/denoms should agree that Reformed Protestantism is superior to others (by which we mean, above other things, “more biblical”), and that they should labor to teach and defend the confessions (by which we mean “what the churches agree is the teaching of Scripture”).
I mean, suppose Leithart and/or Frame could genuinely do both (agree RefProt is superior, and teach and defend it)? Does that make them confessionalists? I don’t think it does.
What I want to say *more* is: that officers (and members) should hold the necessity and authority of the Reformed confession differently than L&F do. This seems to be real dividing issue, wouldn’t you say?
LikeLike
Uhh, ever read Leithart’s views on baptism? I don’t think they qualify as P&R and that’s to put it mildly.
IOW the man can say what he wants, but his credibility as P&R is zip.
But I think Reformed Protestantism sits rather lightly among the FV so no surprise there.
LikeLike
Richard, and my point is that if you are simply trying to be biblical then you may as well be a Methodist, unless you think the Reformed tradition interprets the Bible better than Wesleyans. If that’s the case, then let’s see a little defense of the tradition.
LikeLike
Baus, I don’t know if Frame and Leithart would agree that Ref. Prot. is superior. Frame certainly hasn’t shown that in his book Evangelical Reunion or in his criticisms of confessionalists.
LikeLike
Leithart sound a great deal like Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart:
Richard, and my point is that if you are simply trying to be biblical then you may as well be a Methodist,
RS: I certainly hope you don’t really mean that.
D.G. Hart: unless you think the Reformed tradition interprets the Bible better than Wesleyans. If that’s the case, then let’s see a little defense of the tradition.
RS: This is what I am arguing against. Of course I think that the Reformed tradition interprets the Bible better than the Wesleyans, but that is because of what the Bible teaches. I don’t believe that the Reformed tradition is better than another tradition for any other reason that they are closer to the Bible. But I must believe what the Bible teaches because it is what the Word of God says rather than believe it because that is what tradition says. The latter is nothing more than what Rome used to lead many astray. I would also argue that the writers of the confessions hold to the view that we must believe what the Bible teaches as our priority and we are to believe it because of the inward work of the Spirit and our resting wholly in God rather than because another human or group of humans have written it.
WCF Chapter I
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
LikeLike
Richard, where does the Bible say what WCF says in chap.1? Why do you fly to the confession here when you so often quote Scripture at the rest of your interlocutors?
So now you’re a confessionalst. Great. Welcome to the club. Just give up Edwards and you’ll be fine.
LikeLike
This is unrelated to the OP but I just read Secular Faith for the second time now. I think I appreciated it more this time than I did two or three years ago, yet I also am more skeptical of certain parts. Historical case studies can only go so far, and the development of the positive view in the last chapter relies substantially on a general but brief summary of Daniel’s life in exile. What I’d love to see is a more thorough development and defense of this minority view. It would be nice to see, for example, an edited volume developing the positive theory (assuming one could find more contributors than D.G. Hart…), as “Christian secularism” is either absent or assumed false in virtually every Reformed social and political discussion or debate that I’ve come across.
(For example, I just read Mohler’s..lackluster…Culture Shift, where he “refutes” the very possibility of secularity first by claiming secularity is necessarily anti-religious, then claiming (in a strange inconsistency) that it is necessarily non-existent because it requires (w-v-?) neutrality, and neutrality is impossible…though even more strangely a few pages later he also says we have to tolerate some degree of secularity in politics, especially because we Christians will make secular arguments in politics reasoning from time to time…huh? Anyway, he seems oblivious to the fact that some Reformed have defended forms of secularity, a proposal he marks as anti-religious (or necessarily non-existent–he can’t decide). It is ironic that in a book subtitled “The battle for the moral heart of America” the target of the first chapter would be D.G. Hart as much as any stock liberal or atheist political theorist!!)
LikeLike
Why is being a Confessional minister so difficult for some people to understand or accept?
Really getting tired of reading the same nonsense accusation (i.e. “You must believe that the Westminster Standards are inerrant” or some version of that canard). Our Creeds and Confessions are subordinate standards, but they are still standards nonetheless. And the church down through the centuries/millenia has always had standards for good reason.
I, for one, get more than a tad suspicious whenever I hear someone go to the ‘no creed but Christ’ card (or even the ever pious-sounding, “Just the Bible/exegesis” card for that matter). Makes me wonder why they have such a beef with the Standards in the first place.
Got a better Confession/Creed? Let’s see it.
No? Didn’t think so.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, where does the Bible say what WCF says in chap.1?
RS: 2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1JO 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
D.G. Hart: Why do you fly to the confession here when you so often quote Scripture at the rest of your interlocutors?
RS: Just to show you that the writers of the confession agree with my position and not yours (what appears to be yours). We are not to believe proposition A (whatever it is) simply because it is taught in a confession, but we are to believe that God says it because God says it. Confessions are a guide to that.
D.G. Hart: So now you’re a confessionalst. Great. Welcome to the club.
RS: Alway have been (since on this board and before) in the sense of WCF chapter I. Thanks.
D.G. Hart: Just give up Edwards and you’ll be fine.
RS: My affections for Edwards and the God He exalts in his writings are way too high to do such a horrible thing. Besides, my will is not free to do so.
LikeLike
Andy Schreiber: Why is being a Confessional minister so difficult for some people to understand or accept?
RS: Understand that my answers will be somewhat tongue in cheek, but hopefully there may be a point or two that may help you with why some wrestle with the confessions as an absolute standard of some sort.
Andy: Really getting tired of reading the same nonsense accusation (i.e. “You must believe that the Westminster Standards are inerrant” or some version of that canard).
RS: It appears that you believe that the Westminster Standards have errors. So where are those errors and why do you hold to a document with admitted errors? Do you believe that the purest of churches can so degenerate and become no churches of Christ, but rather synagogues of Satan? (WCF ch XXV:V) If so, then couldn’t a document written by men several hundred years ago actually be used in the wrong way with wrong interpretations? If so, then couldn’t those men have been wrong at some points? Do you believe that the Pope of Rome is the antichrist, a man of sin, and a son of perdition that exalts himself against Christ and all that is called God? WCF XXV: VI)
Andy: Our Creeds and Confessions are subordinate standards, but they are still standards nonetheless. And the church down through the centuries/millenia has always had standards for good reason.
RS: If they are subordinate standards, then isn’t it more important to hold to the Scriptures (of which the Creeds and Confesssions are subordinate to) with even more tenacity?
Andy: I, for one, get more than a tad suspicious whenever I hear someone go to the ‘no creed but Christ’ card (or even the ever pious-sounding, “Just the Bible/exegesis” card for that matter). Makes me wonder why they have such a beef with the Standards in the first place.
RS: Maybe they have done some serious exegesis and truly differ with Creeds and Confessions in a few places and that is their beef.
Andy: Got a better Confession/Creed? Let’s see it.
RS: Sure, I have one and your Creed and Confession is subordinate to it. In fact, the WCF says you must believe what Scritpure says and that God teaches it.
Andy: No? Didn’t think so.
RS: Not so fast.
LikeLike
Richard, thanks for the response (even if somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
My reply to such would simply be as follows:
If someone has a serious problem with the Westminster Standards, that person should do one of two things:
1. Seek ordination elsewhere (i.e. not in the PCA or OPC).
or
2. If he is already ordained in the PCA or OPC, he should make honor his ordination vows & make his exceptions/divergence in views known to his colleagues and then (if they have deemed his exceptions/divergence to be acceptable) take it upon himself to begin the process of appealing for the Standards to be amended.
If someone’s exceptions have to do with justification by faith alone (e.g. FV), the Sacraments (which were no small matter to the Reformers or the Westminster Divines), or church polity (e.g. the ordination of deaconesses), then he should not expect his exceptions to be easily accepted, if at all. Those are all pretty important issues in the life of the church.
“Presbyterian” or “Reformed” are not defined by whatever any individual personally likes, believes, practices, or prefers. Seems to me that (like with many things in life) some are prone to mentally define what a good Presbyterian is by their own devises, not Confessionally. And that is half the problem, IMO.
– Andy
LikeLike
Andy Schreiber: Richard, thanks for the response (even if somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
My reply to such would simply be as follows: If someone has a serious problem with the Westminster Standards, that person should do one of two things:
RS: Andy, as one who truly wrestles with these issues (what does it mean to be confessional and so on), allow me to bombard you with a few more questions.
1) Who gets to decide what a serious problem with Westminster is?
2) Does Westminster give you a way to decide what a serious problem is or not?
3) Take your example of justification. Does one have to hold each word and each point with the
same degree of strength?
4) Can one hold to the words of Westminster and differ from its theology, or perhaps hold to its
theology while at the same time being uncomfortable with the way it is expressed?
LikeLike
Richard, so it’s okay for you to have Edwards but I can’t have the Westminster Confession unless you approve by the lights of your interpretation of the Bible and of history. When are you going to see that in this whole process you are the arbiter of who’s in and who’s out? At least I believe in councils and assemblies. You are a pope and you don’t even know it.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so it’s okay for you to have Edwards but I can’t have the Westminster Confession unless you approve by the lights of your interpretation of the Bible and of history. When are you going to see that in this whole process you are the arbiter of who’s in and who’s out? At least I believe in councils and assemblies. You are a pope and you don’t even know it.
RS: It would be helpful if you limited your comments to what I say and what is an actual deduction or implication from what I said. I have never said that you cannot have your Westminster Confession. I am also not arguing about my personal interpretation versus that of your WCF. I am saying that the WCF itself says that people must be convinced by Scripture itself. I don’t think that anyone holds to the WCF these days in all ways and at all points, so at some point you will have to step outside the WCF to decide what is important. I think my position is that we need Creeds and Confessions, but so far it is hard to find one that many people can hold to without arguing about what it means. It seems as if people disagree about what the WCF means about as much as they do the Scriptures. So again, perhaps the real argument is over what it means to be Confessional in light of what the WCF teaches about how we are to believe something because it is in Scripture and taught of the Spirit.
LikeLike
Richard, I stand by my reading of you as pope. You have raised questions about confessionalism, suggesting it is merely a form of tradition. You raise questions about my interpretation of Christianity. You disagree with my own historical work on Edwards and revivalism. Your constant defense is that you are simply reading the Bible. You don’t allow that others also read the Bible and come to different conclusions. And instead of recognizing a diversity of interpretations, you insist that yours — I mean, the Bible’s — alone is correct because it is biblical. Okay, maybe this isn’t papal. Maybe it’s divine. Either way, it’s amazingly self-superior.
I wish you might consider your powers of interpretation. Might they be wrong? Or is to suggest that you are wrong to imply the Bible has errors?
LikeLike
Darryl, am I wrong in asserting that your theological position inevitably devolves to exegetical and hermeneutical arguments about the WCF? After all, people read Scripture and always come to different conclusons about what it says.
RS: Am I wrong in asserting that your theological position inevitably devolves to exegetical and hermeneutical arguments about Scripture? And that you are in danger of becoming a dispensationalist (like myself)?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I stand by my reading of you as pope. You have raised questions about confessionalism, suggesting it is merely a form of tradition. You raise questions about my interpretation of Christianity. You disagree with my own historical work on Edwards and revivalism. Your constant defense is that you are simply reading the Bible.
RS: Nada, remember that I also claim to read the Bible in light of what others in the past have written as well. I suggest that some forms of confessionalism can be merely a form of tradition and say that the WCF itself says we should be convinced of truth because of the Word of God and the Spirit in our hearts. The WCF itself, then, gives us the teaching that it should not be followed blindly. But yes, I strongly disgree with your interpretation of Edwards and revivalism. Edwards wrote in a letter to one of the Erskine brothers in Scotland that he believed the WCF. They wanted him to move to Scotland as a minister. I think you read Edwards (by appearances) through the lense of Piper rather than read Edwards as a whole. You say his writings on the Affections leaves you cold, which sure sounds like affections on your part. So I certainly disagree with you on that. But then again, it is not wrong to disagree with others as long as they are not the pope. Right?
D.G. Hart: You don’t allow that others also read the Bible and come to different conclusions.
RS: Of course others read the Bible and come to different conclusions. That is why there are Mormons and so on. The question is what does the Bible really teach and what is true.
D.G. Hart: And instead of recognizing a diversity of interpretations, you insist that yours — I mean, the Bible’s — alone is correct because it is biblical.
RS: Hmmm, just remember that I am not the one with the BLOG that is taking on the whole world. But I sure thought that it was okay to discuss what was biblical and what was not. Of course I recognize that we have a diversity of interpretations, but I hope that is not a denial that there is only one truth. We are to discuss these things because there is only one truth and God can lead us to that truth.
D.G. Hart: Okay, maybe this isn’t papal. Maybe it’s divine. Either way, it’s amazingly self-superior.
RS: Are you talking about yourself or me?
D.G. Hart: I wish you might consider your powers of interpretation. Might they be wrong? Or is to suggest that you are wrong to imply the Bible has errors?
RS: Of course I am wrong at points, but if I have studied something (in the Bible and what others in history have said about it) and have arrived at a studied conclusion, it takes more than mere conjecture and bad hermenetics to move me. Bad philosophy, short-sighted or self-centered interpretations of men of the past, and most of all self-centered interpretations of the Bible do not tend to convince others. On some things people can live with the differences and go on, but that does not mean that they should not discuss them. Am I a pope because I disagree with you on Edwards or with Mark on his views? That is a small section to be pope over.
But as to power of interpretation, I do believe that a person must read a lot of Edwards in order to understand what he means. One must read his work on the Trinity, on grace, on love, ethics (End for Which God Created the World), original sin, and so on before they are going to understand his treatise on affections and see how objective it is rather than subjective. So the part on powers of interpretation can go more ways than one.
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow: to RS: Am I wrong in asserting that your theological position inevitably devolves to exegetical and hermeneutical arguments about Scripture? And that you are in danger of becoming a dispensationalist (like myself)?
RS: I hope it does not devolve to that of dealing with Scripture, but rather evolves. I believe the WCF itself teaches us to make sure all things are grounded in Scripture. I do not perceive that I am in great danger of becoming a dispensationalist as I am a covenantal baptist with a different twist. So may main confession is the 1689 London Confession. But again, my view is that confessions are necessary but they must always be tightly lashed to the cross of Christ and the Scriptures or they become the traditions of men. The PCUSA, the Congregationalists, and Southern Seminary (its Abstracts) are all proof of what happens when a confession is not seen as grounded in Scripture.
LikeLike
Ted, you need to add that my view devolves to contested interpretations of the Confession of Faith in the courts of churches inhabited by men who have adopted the confession. This is not an academic question merely. It is a churchly one.
LikeLike
Richard, so again, you object to my traditionalism but fail to acknowledge your own. I stand with the confessions of the Reformed churches. You stand with Edwards. We both have our understanding of Scripture shaped by our reading of dead saints. But the difference is that you have trouble admitting that you lean on people for your understanding of the Bible. You have trouble doing this because your truth must always come from your own study of the Bible. And when that happens, there goes Edwards. But if Edwards is allowed into the room when you’re interpreting the Bible, why do you object when I let officers from the OPC into my room (as crowded as it may be).
LikeLike
Richard: Thanks for elucidating.
But since your faith is expressed in a confession rather than in an approach to Scripture shouldn’t you be convincing Darryl of the superiority of London 1689 vs. London 1648…
…instead of Edwards vs. Old Life?
LikeLike
DGH:
“Ted, you need to add that my view devolves to contested interpretations of the Confession of Faith in the courts of churches inhabited by men who have adopted the confession. This is not an academic question merely. It is a churchly one.”
Well said.
I would only add it is more than churchly. It is wanna-be Catholic (uppercase “C”).
LikeLike
Ted, that’s odd. I thought it was biblical, you know, like Acts 15 (as opposed to a fictitious Acts 29).
LikeLike
Ted, spoken like a good eeeevangelical descendant of the Radical Reformation. We didn’t reform nearly enough. But you do know that the Catholics reckon Protestant esteeming of the Bible as latent Anabaptism, right? But the Reformation was a battle on two fronts, which, among so many other things, was also a battle against two camps which claimed the Holy Spirit above the Word and descending like a dove on either the shoulder of the Church or into the heart of the Individual. And so Calvin reminds that:
We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that Satan never transforms himself so cunningly, as not in some measure to betray himself, the principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods. And you, Sadolet, by stumbling on the very threshold, have paid the penalty of that affront which you offered to the Holy Spirit, when you separated him from the Word.
LikeLike
DGH:
“Ted, that’s odd. I thought it was biblical, you know, like Acts 15 (as opposed to a fictitious Acts 29).”
😉
It was precisely Acts 15 I was referring to, or should I say, the exact same misinterpretation of it that the WCF and the RCC share. They are just a more consistent in their application of a misinterpretation than the Reformed are… hence the “wanna-be”-ism.
Shall we discuss on Old Life what Acts 15 teaches? That will require a discussion involving hermeneutics and Scripture, not hermeneutics and a Confession.
LikeLike
Zrim, dear man. You’re shadow boxing.
None of your blows land. Calvin didn’t have folks like me in mind when he referred to anabaptist.
I am/was unworthy to tie his sandals, and you honor me way too much by even applying his denunciation against me.
Calvin was first and foremost an exegete of Scripture, highly skilled in the original languages. Only after that was he a scholar of the Fathers. IOW, he put the knowledge of Scripture as more importnat than the knowledge of those who wrote about Scripture.
How well have you done in imitating Calvin? If you had invested even 1/4 of the time you invested in internet jousting to learning the languages, where might your knowledge of God and His glory be?
LikeLike
Dear Zrim, I am pretty sure Calvin did have anabaptists like me in mind. My goodness, I don’t even believe in the inherent immortality of the soul!
That being said, I understand your need for tidiness wants to lump all anabaptists together (and then lump them together with the Romanist extreme on the other side of your “correct”). But here’s where you need to make up your mind. Are you talking about the “anabaptists” who went by the “letter”, ie, those who imposed their “community standards”? Or are you talking about the individualists who rejected “biblicism” and who “put the Holy Spirit above the Word”?
We know they are the bad guys. And we know they are all basically the same, so that it’s not worth our while to notice any differences. But are they legalists or are they enthusiasts?
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow: Richard: Thanks for elucidating.
But since your faith is expressed in a confession rather than in an approach to Scripture shouldn’t you be convincing Darryl of the superiority of London 1689 vs. London 1648…
…instead of Edwards vs. Old Life?
RS: Until Dr. Hart reaches the point where it may be possible for him to recognize that there may be an error somewhere in the WCF and that the teaching of the Bible must be superior to the WCF, he will not move from it. My assertion is that the WCF itself teaches that one must study Scripture for understanding rather than just trust in the confession. Edwards is perhaps another issue, though perhaps not entirely. I might also add that the 1689 is not far from the WCF on most issuesm and in fact it was built on and almost copied in most places. But of course since infant baptism is not commanded nor do see one example of it in the NT, the Regulative Principle demands a change in that location.
LikeLike
Ted, you may have a point–how could a medieval Calvin have conceived of a modernity that gave rise to theological oddities like Calminianism or Reformed Baptists? Still, he did write catechisms and his cohorts and students wrote confessions (e.g. de Bres and the Belgic). I’m not so sure he’d take well to confessions and their adherents being portrayed as wanna-be papists.
LikeLike
Ted, don’t forget the pastoral epistles and the Old Testament when you start interpreting.
LikeLike
Mark, I’m talking to Ted whose low church sensibilities lead him to suggest high church Calvinists are latent Romanists. Fubar.
LikeLike
Richard, I have no problem admitting that Scripture is infallible and the Confession is not the place where we go to settle controversies or to understand God’s will (though the confession does summarize biblical teaching). What you won’t admit is that you are just as dependent on history and church fathers as I am — hence your oversized love for Edwards.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so again, you object to my traditionalism but fail to acknowledge your own.
RS: I don’t object to all of your traditionalism and I fully admit my own (of sorts). I
D.G. Hart: I stand with the confessions of the Reformed churches. You stand with Edwards.
RS: I don’t really see the WCF and Edwards as all that far apart, though he would be regarding the sacraments with the Three Forms.
D.G. Hart: We both have our understanding of Scripture shaped by our reading of dead saints. But the difference is that you have trouble admitting that you lean on people for your understanding of the Bible. You have trouble doing this because your truth must always come from your own study of the Bible.
RS: I am just following the WCF on that one, however. I freely admit that I lean on the old dead guys for understanding, but ultimately they must convince me that it is biblical. Again, if I am reading the WCF at all correctly that is what it teaches. So I think I am more in line with the WCF at that point than you are.
D.G. Hart: And when that happens, there goes Edwards. But if Edwards is allowed into the room when you’re interpreting the Bible, why do you object when I let officers from the OPC into my room (as crowded as it may be).
RS: Because they are stuffy, boring, and don’t have the understanding he did? I don’t object to letting those officers in your room at all. I am simply saying that the confession itself teaches that we are to have our understanding of the Bible from the Bible and we are to be convinced by the Spirit of God. Let me give you that section again (see below).
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
RS: I am not to believe the Holy Scripture because of anything or anyone other than God. The authority of Scripture is supreme and it is to be received because it is the Word of God. In other words, it is not to be received by the testimony of one man, many (even if OPC elders), or even a whole confession.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
RS: Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit. My argument is that the confession itself teaches us that we are to be bound to Holy Scripture and only be convinced that something is true because it is the Word of God and we are to be convinced by the Spirit.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I have no problem admitting that Scripture is infallible and the Confession is not the place where we go to settle controversies or to understand God’s will (though the confession does summarize biblical teaching). What you won’t admit is that you are just as dependent on history and church fathers as I am — hence your oversized love for Edwards.
RS: Maybe I am not as dependent on history and the church fathers as you are, but I do read them and have a high appreciation for them. But it is not that I have an oversized love for Edwards, but you have no love for him at all. Such a shame, really. But what I love about reading Edwards is the glory of God that shines through his use of Scripture and his understanding. So I am not sure that I have an oversized love for him, though your point is taken, but through his writings and explanations of Scripture the glory of God shines quite brightly. I hope that it is God that I love rather than Edwards.
LikeLike
Richard, who says you are to “believe” the Bible because of someone else. We are talking about interpretation of Scripture and who shapes us. You keep waffling between leaning on someone else and standing on your own (when in fact your leaning on someone else as you claim to stand alone).
LikeLike
Richard, I’ll put Luther up against Edwards any day. Edwards’ divine glory never provides comfort. Luther begins and ends with Christ (who has a lot to say about God’s glory).
LikeLike
DGH:
“Ted, don’t forget the pastoral epistles and the Old Testament when you start interpreting.”
Oh Darryl. I’ve been interpreting for decades now.
So, to Acts 15 and an “either/or” interpretive question.
Acts 15:22 has the word “church” in the singular: “with the whole church.” The interpretive question is this: which church is “the whole church” – the church of Jersusalem (cf. Acts 15:4, 16:4), or a convening of the leaders of churches (see WCF: 31:1, “Of Synods and Councils”)?
LikeLike
Ted, you mean, like, when the elders of Israel assembled it was all of Israel or simply the leaders of Israels?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, who says you are to “believe” the Bible because of someone else. We are talking about interpretation of Scripture and who shapes us. You keep waffling between leaning on someone else and standing on your own (when in fact your leaning on someone else as you claim to stand alone).
RS: I don’t claim to stand alone. I am not sure why you keep coming up with that, but I guess it fits a paradigm. I am saying each person must be convinced by the study of Scripture as to what Scripture teaches, but the confessions and the giants who have been in the land we must use. Paul used the Old Testament and the words of Jesus and he is a model of what is truly authoritative. I guess I see myself as standing somewhere in the middle with the belief (along with WCF) that each person must study the Scripture and be convinced of what Scripture teaches because Scripture teaches it. Other things are helps, guides, and parameters. It is dangerous to believe something that has new in history, but it is also dangerous to believe something because it has been in history for a long time.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I’ll put Luther up against Edwards any day.
RS: No use setting friends against each other.
D.G. Hart: Edwards’ divine glory never provides comfort.
RS: I cannot speak to your affections and why you don’t find an affection that corresponds with comfort, but I can only tell you that biblically speaking there is no true comfort apart from that divine glory.
D.G. Hart: Luther begins and ends with Christ (who has a lot to say about God’s glory).
RS: That is why I don’t think you understand Edwards correctly. By the way, just because one does not understand Edwards correctly does not necessarily put them out of the kingdom. But… With Edwards there is no separating the glory of God from Christ. So if one preaches Christ and another preaches the glory of God, they are not preaching different things in reality. But again, one has to see that in light of the nature of the Trinity. Hebrews 1:3; John 1:1-5, 14-18 and II Cor 3:18; 4:4, 6 show this.
LikeLike
Richard, and it is dangerous to go to the mat defending everything Edwards wrote (especially when he wrote too much and wasn’t always clear — as McMark well shows). Some would say that if you are as devoted to the Bible as you say, you’d give up Edwards.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, and it is dangerous to go to the mat defending everything Edwards wrote (especially when he wrote too much and wasn’t always clear — as McMark well shows).
RS: But I wouldn’t degend all that he wrote, though he was not as unclear as some seem to think. He does lean on things he had written and/or preached previously, but if one gets a bigger picture of him he is not as unclear as some make out. I don’t think that one quote taken from its immediate context and then its larger context proves that he wrote too much (I wish he would have written more) or that he was wasn’t always clear to all who read him. I would also say we could make part of that charge against the Bible. It is not always clear either.
D.G. Hart: Some would say that if you are as devoted to the Bible as you say, you’d give up Edwards.
RS: Then those folks need to read more of the Bible and Edwards and they would know that they are wrong and repent in dust and ashes.
LikeLike
DGH:
“Ted, you mean, like, when the elders of Israel assembled it was all of Israel or simply the leaders of Israels?”
Darryl, did the non-representative elders of tribes Israel who killed Christ become the representative elders of the local bodies of Christ who love Christ?
LikeLike
Ted, of course not. But we’re not talking about who killed Christ. We’re talking about whether the leaders from different congregations or tribes may constitute the whole church.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, who says you are to “believe” the Bible because of someone else. We are talking about interpretation of Scripture and who shapes us.
RS: Below is an interesting discussion of things within the PCA. I bet D.G. Hart would find some fuel for a few BLOG topic here. I might add that it would be rightly so. It is also related to many things discussed at oldlife.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=7312842493
LikeLike
DGH:
“Ted, of course not. But we’re not talking about who killed Christ. We’re talking about whether the leaders from different congregations or tribes may constitute the whole church.”
And what say you from Acts 15:22?
LikeLike
Ted, I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make. The council of Jerusalem was not a congregation, or a group of congregations. It was an assembly of officers who were there to make decisions for the whole church since there is only one church that meets in different locations.
LikeLike
While I’ve appreciated Rev. Stellman’s defense of Reformed orthodoxy, I suspect that that defense fell largely on deaf ears in the PCA. As a conservative mainline Presbyterian, I have always viewed the PCA as little more than a de facto sect of the SBC. The battle over FV will be won by the party that is best able to demonstrate that they lie the closest to the revivalistic Baptistic tradition that permeates the PCA.
LikeLike
“Some would say that if you are as devoted to the Bible as you say, you’d give up Edwards.”
Some would say?! What a weasel word! Notice, Darryl doesn’t have the nerve to say it himself; he says “some would say”. What does that prove? Sadly, nothing, it seems as if DGH wants to muddy the waters with a ridiculous side track; “some would say”. Darryl, please never say that again, since *some* people will *say* anything. So what?
LikeLike
DGH:
“The council of Jerusalem was not a congregation, or a group of congregations. It was an assembly of officers who were there to make decisions for the whole church since there is only one church that meets in different locations.”
It seems a bit parochial and even jejune to call apostles “officers.” Officers aren’t the foundation of Christ’s Church, and all the recorded speakers of the conference were apostles. Under their authority, all the elders present agreed entirely with all that was spoken by the Lord’s apostles. And why not? Their words (apostles) were of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).
So in what sense is the Jerusalem Conf. a pattern for synods and councils, as WCF 31 claims? The JC was universally applied to ALL churches and to disobey it’s decisions was to disobey apostles (Acts 16:4). But for me to disobey the OPC GA makes me guilty of exactly what? (or name your denomination). In rejecting the Presby adjudications have I disobeyed the word of God? And if I have not, neither has anyone.
And if no one has disobeyed God by rejecting their GA’s decisions, to which may be added the synods of the RCC, then all biblical authority is gone. All that is left is human authority.
Without Acts 15 you have no hope of claiming the Bible teaches connectional polity. You are left to rebuild your denomination’s authority from the writings of men in order to bind the conscience of men apart from Scripture.
BTW, no vote was recorded at the JC, and yet the decisions reached about what must be compelled upon ALL believers was unanimous (Acts 15:25). When was the last time a major policy decision in your GA was unanimous?
LikeLike
Ted,
In rejecting the Presby adjudications have I disobeyed the word of God?
Any devout Presbyterian would claim that it is a sin to be outside of a confessionally Reformed communion, so the answer would be clearly – yes. Denominations are a form of discipline, an acknowledgement that there are real matters of substance that separate us, matters that rise to the level of sinfulness, regardless of which denomination you belong to (e.g. Baptists think it’s a sin for us to baptize our babies, RC’s believe it is a sin to reject the primacy of the bishop of Rome). So saying you reject certain denominational authority in no way removes sin from the equation – the fact of the matter is there is a “right answer” and there is some cost to getting it wrong, even if that doesn’t necessarily make one not a member of the invisible church.
Frankly Ted, I have no idea where you come up with the notion that the apostles were anything other than officers of the church, even Christ fulfills a distinct office in his church. The apostles were commissioned with a very specific task with regard to the growth, function, and maintenance of the church – hence they held a specific office with certain duties entailed in that office. So there is a good deal of continuity between the Jerusalem Council and all other church councils that have proceeded, they had to answer a historical occasion with the truth and authority that was vested to their office for the good of the church. Your arguments against “connective” models of church governance just don’t hold up against historical scrutiny – it was the catholicity or “connectivity” of the early church that enable the codifying of our cardinal doctrines, doctrines we still confess today. Could a rag-tag group of independents have given us Nicea, or Chalcedon – would they have been able to stand united on matters of Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy? Likewise, we continue in this tradition, confessing the truth of Scripture together, in mutual submission to both Scripture and to what we believe Scripture affirms. The church has the responsibility to state, summarize, and clarify the truth in it’s time, which is why we have councils.
So what, you reject the authority of a NAPARC denomination, I am not sure how you get around utilizing ecumenical confessions. Would you consider someone who rejects the Apostles Creed a Christian, would you nominate an elder who rejected the Chalcedonian Definition? Even some baptists utilize confessional documents that were drafted in an ecumenical manner – LBC and Savoy Baptists seem to have at least some notion of catholicity and the need to hold a common basis for doctrine. I am sure you have conscientious reasons for why you reject Reformed doctrine and polity, but I don’t understand for the life of me why you would argue that Acts 15 has nothing to say to how the church must confess the truth today.
LikeLike
DGH: “The council of Jerusalem was not a congregation, or a group of congregations. It was an assembly of officers who were there to make decisions for the whole church since there is only one church that meets in different locations.”
RS: In my reading of Acts 15 there were only people from two churches or cities present. 1) Paul, Barnabas, and some others from Antioch. 2) The apostles and elders from Jerusalem.
LikeLike
Ted, whatever you think about the OPC and its Assembly — you do have a way of going down rabbit trails — you do seem to concede that Acts 15 is an instance of connectional polity. Great.
As for other examples in the NT, just consider the connection between Paul, Timothy, and elders who rule. And then there is the precedent of connectionalism in the OT.
LikeLike
Jed: “Any devout Presbyterian would claim that it is a sin to be outside of a confessionally Reformed communion, so the answer would be clearly – yes.”
Jed, what date in history did this become a sin? And why aren’t you calling people to repent from it (using Scripture, one would hope)?
Jed: “saying you reject certain denominational authority in no way removes sin from the equation”
Then tell me out of a love for holiness: what is my sin?
Jed: “Frankly Ted, I have no idea where you come up with the notion that the apostles were anything other than officers of the church.”
The apostles were not subject to any one church in the way that officers of churches are (1 Cor. 9:-2; 1 Thess. 2:6; Acts 16:4; 1 Peter 1:1). Your citation of Christ (“even Christ fulfills a distinct office in his church”) is likewise mistaken in that He rules local churches through qualified elders and the church universal by providence. Equating “office” with “officer” is a logical fallacy. The claim that present officers of local churches can adjudicate over churches as apostles did is simply false and in fact never happens. Did you read the Presby denomination that just adjudicated against spanking of children?
Jed: “Likewise, we continue in this tradition, confessing the truth of Scripture together, in mutual submission to both Scripture and to what we believe Scripture affirms. The church has the responsibility to state, summarize, and clarify the truth in it’s time, which is why we have councils.”
You make universals: “the church has the responsibility…which is why we have councils.” Which church Jed? Or did you mean denomination? This is why I say Presbys are wanna-be Catholics. You guys think you speak to the universal church from a place of authority but it’s self-conferred. And even your own member church’s representatives vote against policy motions at GAs, showing you don’t have the leading of the Holy Spirit as did the apostles and elders in the JC (Acts 15:28). You want to claim their Spirit-led example for your practices but don’t have God’s Spirit to honor it.
LikeLike
DGH: “you do seem to concede that Acts 15 is an instance of connectional polity. Great.”
Well, no great communicator am I. I’m trying to show Acts 15 shows just the opposite.
LikeLike
Ted, the apostles were subject to each other. Don’t you remember Paul correcting Peter?
So far, btw, you’ve only been kvetching. You haven’t shown much.
LikeLike
Gee, I don’t know Darryl. Maybe you’re right. I never can correctly assess my kvetchedness from my wretchedness. Adamic hangover. Maybe I stretchedness too much.
But you have yet to engage my interpretation of Acts 15:22 or my bigger challenge that your faith in your church’s confession shares the same foundation and effects as Catholicism. Perhaps as an OPC brother Jed made that point for you quite nicely above, thank him very much.
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow: Maybe I stretchedness too much. But you have yet to engage my interpretation of Acts 15:22 or my bigger challenge that your faith in your church’s confession shares the same foundation and effects as Catholicism.
RS: I left the stretchedness in there simply because it made me smile. Would you mind explaining your challenge about the confession sharing the same foundation and effects as Catholicism? By the way, I am not challenging your challenge but am simply curious or wanting to see your point(s). Thanks
LikeLike
Ted, what interpretation?
Also, in case you hadn’t heard, Presbyterians baptize babies and administer the Lord’s Supper. Sounds pretty Roman Catholic.
LikeLike
DGH:
“Also, in case you hadn’t heard, Presbyterians baptize babies and administer the Lord’s Supper. Sounds pretty Roman Catholic.”
Out of the mouth of babes (dippers). Having a diffucult time staying on point, are we?
LikeLike
Richard,
I love confessions of faith because they are massively helpful teching tools. They just requiring a different level of faith than that reserved for Scripture.
Of course everyone agrees with this. But the fact is that those in a confessional group will rarely if ever recieve well those who proove their confession is at odds with Scripture. For men like myself, the issue is always hermeneutics. For confessional men the issue is always, “what says so and so?”
So people get hardened to Scripture. God does not honor unbelief but further hardens those who do it so that they understand less and less of Scripture while being more proud and arrogant.
The only answer is reformation, the kind mandated in Titus 1:5. It was then that ungodly leaders were removed out of a whole island filled with churches – at least one in every town – and every church with a polity in oppostion to apostolic polity was dismantled and placed under qualified elders.
When Titus was finished appointing elders in every town there was no connectional polity, no congregational polity, and no episcopal polity in the churches of Crete. And to whatever extent those polities were employed in Crete’s churches prior to Titus’ reformation, they were dismantled by apostolic authority. After that, each town’s church was led by a plurality of godly elders. This is the the only reformation the NT bears witness to.
LikeLike
Ted, your point was that Presbyterian ecclesiology is like Rome, right? My response is that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are like Rome — all Christians are sacramental. So now what exactly is your point?
LikeLike
Ted, Titus’ reformation the only one, except for Acts 15 and the OT. Connectional polity runs through all of Scripture.
BTW, hermeneutics is as much a human construction as any confession. In fact, confessions are professions of Christians. Hermeneutics as so much human speculation.
LikeLike
DGH: “Ted, your point was that Presbyterian ecclesiology is like Rome, right?”
Hardly.
DGH: “BTW, hermeneutics is as much a human construction as any confession. In fact, confessions are professions of Christians. Hermeneutics as so much human speculation.”
Again, hardly. The Son of God revels the Father hermeneutically in the Word of God (John 1:18). Confessions reveal a date-stamped attempt to organize the riches of revealed truth apporpriate to the debates of that day.
Christ often affirms and teaches herementics. He quoted the OT often. “You have heard… But I say to you….” He didn’t rely on existing confessions of faith, did He?
He even approved of the hermenutics of an unregenerate man: “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE” (Luke 10:28). Hermenutics is therefore neither speculation, nor a merely human construction.
Read the Bible wrong and you die. Read it right and you live.You can’t say that about the WCF. Well, you could, but you’ld be wrong.
LikeLike
Ted, right, and I’m going to assign the Bible to teach hermeneutics? Turning the word into an adverb doesn’t make it divine.
LikeLike
DGH: “Ted, right, and I’m going to assign the Bible to teach hermeneutics? Turning the word into an adverb doesn’t make it divine.”
“Yea, has God said,” spake the serpent, accusing Eve of faulty hermeneutics relying on God’s word alone. And we’ve been paying the price ever since in death, fear, and unbelief.
So your point is, “You can’t interpret Scripture apart from men?” Well, no.
Then your point is, “You can’t interpret Scripture apart from the Church?” See. You’re a wanna-be Catholic.
LikeLike
Ted, are you not part of the church? Is a congregation somehow anti-ecclesiastical? You are defeating yourself since you yourself make a particular ecclesiology so fundamental to how you judge other believers.
LikeLike
Ted, I know Titus is everything for you, but I’m sure you’ve read Ephesians 4:
“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.”
IOW, God has equipped the church to interpret Scripture. That’s what confessions, creeds, and catechisms are, the result of God having given teachers to build up the body in unity and preserve from being tossed by every wind of doctrine. How exactly is this latently Roman? You say you “love confessions of faith because they are massively helpful teching tools,” but Ephesians 4 seems to have an even higher view of the gifts to the church than your high opinion.
LikeLike
DGH: “You are defeating yourself since you yourself make a particular ecclesiology so fundamental to how you judge other believers.”
Darryl, if I disagree with you am I being wrongly judgmental? Is showing you where your faith is Catholic and at odds with Scripture wrong? If not, then why do you feel wrongly judged?
Zrim, thanks for the passage in Ephesians. And i do agree that God has equipped the church to interpret Scripture through the gifts lavishly given by the risen and glorious Lord Jesus. That’s why I love confessions and creeds and catchisms. If you make your over to our church’s web site you can see a “What We Teach” statement 9 or so pages long of single spaced theologizing. It tells our people what they can expect to hear from the elders. Privately, my wife and I used catechisms (Luther’s, WSC) in raising our children in the faith.
Where I cannot join you is identifying creeds and confessions as the mature result of the Lord’s gifts to the church, nor does Eph. 4. Confessions mixed with faith don’t keep believers from every new wind of tricksy doctrine as history clearly proves. Confessions are date-stamped because they dealt with the doctrinal problems and men’s theological understanding of those problems in their day.
Scripture, mixed with faith and gifted teachers teaching, does keep believers from false doctrine. We haven’t reached the fullness of the stature of Christ yet so lets pursue the knowledge of Him in Scripture. Let’s stand on our forefathers in the faith’s shoulders, as God might enable, yet examine their hermeneutics in light of Scripture. Its just being “more noble minded than those in Thessalonica” if you catch my drift.
LikeLike
Ted, this is what is perplexing about the low church evangelical ethic over against the high church confessional ethic: why do you guys get to have a “statement 9 or so pages long of single spaced theologizing” but we get uncharitably dinged for being latent Catholics for having confessions? The thing is, everybody is confessional and denominational, as your 9 pages clearly shows, but it’s the evangelical non-denominationalists who seem to think they may reserve the right to impugn those honest enough to admit it, all in the ironic name of being biblical.
LikeLike
Ted, quit bloviating.
Are you here to see if there is some low-hanging fruit you can pick off? You don’t engage with the actual Scriptural arguments on this side for our polity and doctrinal definitions. You clearly don’t come in here for genuine engagement, but to get off talking points. You toss around a verse or two as if that was biblical theology and exegesis. You’re as fresh as a stale papist doing a Mt.16:18/Jas.2:24 drive-by.
You aren’t honest, face it. You literally know zero about what we do, or the biblical defense of it. I know you don’t because you are as ignorant today as several months ago when I offered you (in another thread) 500pp of biblical theology and exegesis to start your learning curve. The Presb. & Refd. prefer something more robust than picking a handy verse, to which to *peg* our doctrine, as you seem to think we should (since that’s closer to your practice).
The reading I suggested wasn’t an assignment with a goal of getting you to change your mind. But to assist you in gaining some clarity into the substance of what you are actually meeting with here and elsewhere. Obviously you have some idea about what Rome thinks and why. But in your dualistic world, everyone who doesn’t agree with you shares in their errors. If you bothered to do some investigation, hopefully you might put aside at least some of the idiotic projections you assign to us. But you don’t know what we believe, and therefore are not competent to judge what is wrong with it.
Fine, you aren’t interested, and that’s actually OK… except for the fact that you still come around and spout off nonsense like “you are just RomanCatholics in this and that.” Strong statements; obvious bullheaded ignorance. And it isn’t excusable, because you’ve been petitioned to get a little education, and then come back to talk.
This isn’t an issue of you being *more* Reformational than us, or carrying through the “sola scriptura” principle with greater rigor or love of the truth. We have the *same* final authority that you claim: the Bible. We just use *more* of it that you do, and that means that we read it differently than you do. Ours is the “Reformed” hermeneutic, and yours is the “Anabaptist.” Let’s put these disputes over ecclesiology and credo into proper perspective.
Since you don’t understand why we don’t believe as you do, nor do you care to figure it out, you just assume it’s tied historically to the extrabiblical claims of medieval Romanism, from which soup the churches of the Reformation era emerged. And in your head, this a priori justifies your dismissive insults.
Until you demonstrate some studied familiarity with the contrary biblical interpretation (to yours) of the believing, confessing Presb.& Refd. churches, people here shouldn’t take you seriously.
LikeLike
Ted, no it’s not that your judgmental it’s that your hypocritically judgmental. You have a view of the church but if others do and make it important (as you do) then we are Roman Catholic. You have your own church’s confession, determined by elders, and yet others who use confessions are deficient. BTW, did your elders and you cherry pick from “date-stamped” creeds when you wrote this: “We teach that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, possesses all the divine excellencies, and in these He is coequal, consubstantial, and coeternal with the Father ( John 10:30; 14:9).”
Come on back to earth Ted. Your pedestal is no more divine than the Reformed churches’.
LikeLike
DGH: “You have a view of the church but if others do and make it important (as you do) then we are Roman Catholic.”
It isn’t taking the church seriously that makes one Catholic-like, but how one relies on man-made documents that claim to define the church that does.
DGH: “You have your own church’s confession, determined by elders, and yet others who use confessions are deficient.”
I’m guessing you saw our “What We Teach” document online and assumed that since we have document that specifies teaching positions that we use a confession. It’s not. Members of Grace Church are not required to embrace it lock, stock, and barrel since the positions worked out there are the result of years of exegesis and study. What they agree to is being taught those doctrinal positions.
Further, in all the years I’ve been an elder we’ve never once gone back to our “What We Teach” statement to recalibrate or find out what we’re supposed to believe. A “What We Teach” statement relies on confessions and the work of godly and gifted men who have plowed the ground before us, as you point out, but it’s different than a confession in both intent and effect.
What we yearn for is exegesis based on sound hermeneutics that can be derived from special revelation. Where I am wrong on Scripture I want to know, and the one trying to show me where I am wrong is my friend. Our failings as elders are many, yes, but relying on our “What We Teach” statement as a safeguard of the truth and Christ’s sheep (as a Catholic-like approach to church documents would) is not likely one of them.
I guess engaging Acts 15:22 isn’t a part of Old Life. Too bad. It’s referred to in the WCF as a Scriptural proof for synods and councils.
LikeLike
Zrim: “The thing is, everybody is confessional and denominational, as your 9 pages clearly shows, but it’s the evangelical non-denominationalists who seem to think they may reserve the right to impugn those honest enough to admit it, all in the ironic name of being biblical.”
As I just mentioned above, while we have document it doesn’t function as a confession does to a Reformed group of churches. I understand the confusion, and it may seem obvious to you that we are insincere while your group is honest.
But nowhere has our Lord or His apostles told us to hold to a man-made confession or to define our church by such. Our anti-confessional approach to the ministry is not a pendulum swing against the Reformed and Catholic view of the church, but as a way to present to the flock we are accountable for what we will teach them. Where ever anyone disagrees with it (you, or anyone), we yearn to have our potential errors pointed out to us from Scripture. We’re not protecting, nor deriving life from it.
LikeLike
Bruce,
I freely admit I am not as read in Reformed polity as I could be and maybe ought to be, but I have read David W Hall and Joseph H. Hall, eds. Paradigms in Polity. That is hardly a small work (600 pages)! I read this (and other works) long before our brief exchange of months ago, so no, your offering was not the beginning of my learning curve. I’m at a stage now where I look for the author’s use of Scripture and I did scan the work you emailed me. There was very little in the way of exegesis. A lot of assertion but little exegesis. Sorry. Like reading Witherow’s “The Apostolic Church Which Is It? An Enquiry At The Oracles Of God As To Whether Any Existing Form Of Church Government Is Of Divine Right.” May I say tendentious?
I appreciate you openly claiming a “Reformed” hermeneutic. Although I think the term is open to critique, I appreciate your candor. However, I’m sorry. I do not use an Anabaptist hermeneutic, however that might be defined b a very Reformed man like yourself.
Bruce, have you considered your faith? How do you understand Jesus’ words, “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire”?
My take on that is rather plain. It’s true.
You don’t know me or my life except from some theological argumentation. Yet your post accuses me of many sins, too many to list frankly. But the one that suggests to me that you ought to weigh your words in the light of Mat. 5:22 is the use of “idiotic.” That’s a strong word, and is quite in line with “raca” or “fool” in Mat. 5:22.
And in terms of the polity of your group of connected churches, it really all rests one a single verse: Acts 15:22.
LikeLike
Ted, if you don’t like the Anabaptist charge then knock off the latent Catholic jazz. The difference is between low church Protestantism and high church Protestantism, though your credo-baptism puts you one large step closer to the Radical Reformation than the Protestant Reformation.
LikeLike
Ted, your fears of man-made statements must undermine you or your pastor’s regular preaching since what’s the congregation doing listening to just “some guy” preaching. At some point you may need to step up and admit that God delegates authority to men. If we can admit that in society and in the home, why is the church so scary?
As for Acts 15:22, I haven’t seen any exegesis on your side, only references to texts. I don’t see how “the whole church” proves congregationalism or disproves ecclesiastical rule. Be careful with “whole,” by the way, since the Bible says God loves the “whole” world.
LikeLike
Zrim: “if you don’t like the Anabaptist charge then knock off the latent Catholic jazz.”
Thank you. I now understand why you responded the way you did. But isn’t it just possible that someone who isn’t an Anabaptist could make the charge and yet be correct? It’s like Van Til charging all Arminians “Catholics.” I happen to think he was right in that he was referring to where their faith came from (their “pou sto.”). I don’t believe Van Til was trying to offend as much as enlighten (although he no doubt knew how it sounded).
DGH: “At some point you may need to step up and admit that God delegates authority to men.”
Indeed, and to stay within the ordained sphere of delegated authority is faith and not presumption.
DGH: “As for Acts 15:22, I haven’t seen any exegesis on your side, only references to texts.”
Fair enough. The “whole church” of Acts 15:22 is asserted by Presbyterians (and in the WCF) to be made men from several (at least) various churches in Reformed literature (this is necessary for the claim that presbyteries, synods, assemblies, etc. are attested biblically.
One sample: When Luke wrote “the whole church” in Acts 15:22 he was referring to the representatives of many churches, including Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia” (L. Ron Taylor, “Presbyterianism,” , page 81 in Who Runs the Church? Zondervan, 2004) – or see Richard Reymond, “The Presbytery-Led Church,” page 108 in Perspectives on Church Government, Broadman and Holman, 2004.
Thus, these (alleged) representatives were formally connected to each other and made a decision binding for their respective churches.
Is this what the text teaches? At least 4 factors militate against it.
1) The representatives are never named or identified as representatives or speakers in any way, so how does anyone know they even existed? It’s conjecture.
2) The whole church” mentioned in Acts 15:22 is exactly what it sounds like — the one church in Jerusalem. At the beginning of the chapter Luke states that when Paul and Barnabas and their companions “came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by “the church” (Acts 15:4). His words make it clear that neither Paul nor Barnabas nor their traveling companions were a part of that church. Instead, they were welcomed by that church, and the church was in Jerusalem. This same church is later mentioned in Acts 15:22 as “the whole church.” There is no hint in the intervening verses that there might be more than one church being represented for no other church is mentioned. Had Luke intended us to understand that multiple churches were represented at the Jerusalem Conference he simply could have used the plural “churches” as he did a few verses later in Acts 15:41. Moreover the verb “choose” in Acts 15:22 is both masculine and plural and therefore refers only to the “apostles and elders.” It can-not be, linguistically, that “the whole church” made a decision; instead it was only the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church, as Acts 16:4 confirms.
3) Luke further undercuts the connectional claim. He explains that Paul and Silas went to the churches of their first missionary journey and “delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith…” (Acts 16:4-5). This subverts the connectional claim of representation since these churches were not represented at the Jerusalem Conference and yet had to obey the decrees. Therefore the JC was not representational. Had there been church representatives involved in the decisions at the Jerusalem Conference, they would have carried the conference’s decisions back to their own churches, not Paul and the others.
4) The Holy Spirit inspired Luke to make distinction between singular “church” and plural “churches.” When these words are traced from Acts 15 and into Acts 16 a clear distinction is made. The JC was delivered to churches (plural) – not the “Church.” Additionally, the decisions of the JC were binding on every individual church, not based on representation, but based on the nature of the event being superintended by the Holy Spirit (likely in the form of prophecy, Acts 15:28) – and the apostolic involvement – every speaker was an apostle.
Thus, the Catholic and Connectional claim that multiple churches were involved in the JC is incorrect. Take away Acts 15:22 and Catholics and Connectionalists are left with nothing to base their ecclesiastical doctrine upon but distant allusions to OT Israel while repressing what God does say in the NT.
In love, Ted
LikeLike
Ted, if you are critical of confessionalism, fine. But the charge of latent Catholicism is reckless (and not easily covered with feigned love). It sounds an awful lot like the Radical Reformation’s charge that the Protestant Reformation didn’t go far enough in its reforms. I understand that today’s Baptist isn’t yesteryear’s Anabaptist. But the sacramentology, coupled up with both the lower ecclesiology and this constant criticism of Reformed being latently Roman sure puts you much closer to Münster than Geneva.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Was Van Til unloving to call Evangelicals, for the most part anyway, Catholics? And in saying he did love them, was he in fact hypocritical?
For many it took his insights to help us see our accomodation to Catholocism. It is our natural position, you know.
LikeLike
Ted, to draw parallels between evangelicals and Catholics is one thing (and quite perceptive). But there are important differences that keep each in their respective camps. Still, low church evangelicals have more in common with infallible church Catholics than high church Calvinists have with either.
LikeLike
Zrim: “Still, low church evangelicals have more in common with infallible church Catholics than high church Calvinists have with either.”
Perhaps, with epistemology being foremost? Popes in independent churches? Check. An approach to relating to God that is “magic.” Check. And you could add many more, no doubt. Alternative sources of authority to Scripture. Check.
Which means it’s time to move on to the text of Scripture, friend. Acts 15:22 and WCF 31….
LikeLike
This is the bishop for which Stellman was waiting:
LikeLike
“Much of the economic underpinnings for Washington state’s economy is built on fraud”
Did he say this before or after Jason started selling cars?
LikeLike
Jason requests more information on how to earn a living in the field of “designer coffees”.
Designer coffees?
LikeLike
Leithart—Behind this Confessionalist elevation of tradition (in practice, over Scripture) is a broader tendency related to … “tragic metaphysics,” the notion that the original and old is necessarily preferable to the derived and the new
mcmark—We who are already citizens of a different kingdom long for anything other than this present age, be it past “old school” or the “not yet” sometimes called “the theology of the cross”
(Portugal of 1912) A. F. G Bell — “The saudade of the Portuguese is a vague and constant desire for something that does not and probably cannot exist, for something other than the present, a turning towards the past or towards the future; not an active discontent or poignant sadness but an indolent dreaming wistfulness.”
LikeLike
Leithart–“The Son, though He comes from the Father, is equal to the Father in every respect; in fact, there is no pure, unsupplemented origin, because there can be no Father without a Son. It says the opposite too in its eschatology: The golden age is not lost in the unrecoverable past but ahead of us in an eschatological future”
mcmark—Gaffin’s dogmatic notion is that everything now is “gray”—the already justified are not yet justified, the united are not yet united, the believing continues to need to be fulfilled in works…
Sehnsucht contains within it the meaning of the universe and a huge and painfully unrequited yeaning to find and touch the mystery, to resolve it by becoming one with it. Though painful and haunting (like saudade, because it is unrequited), it is extremely alluring, even rapturous, possibly because the heightened yearning or longing itself brings a sense of closeness to whatever it is that seems to be calling from afar.
LikeLike