blurring the lines.
The Reformed tradition is one that is always striving to stick to Biblical truth. Everything we believe is rooted in the fact that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Our doctrine is rooted in Scripture alone, which hopefully makes it as close to the truth as possible.
In order for us to better understand the Scriptures, early Reformers wrote summaries and confessions such as the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort. These documents help us to learn and explain what they found to be the truth in the Word. These are wonderful documents, and can help us understand what we read in the Bible.
I wonder, however, if we sometimes put too much weight on these documents. No one in the Reformed Church will come out and say that they believe that the confessions are inerrant, but I think that sometimes we treat them as if they are. I say this because in the last few weeks I have been to several Youth Group Bible Studies or similar events where leaders would look to the Catechism or Belgic Confession before turning to Scripture in order to answer a question or start a discussion. Why do we not turn to Scripture first? Sometimes it is easier to look to the Catechism, because it is so nicely laid out, but it is so much more fullfilling when the knowledge comes straight from the Word, and we can be fully confident that it is 100% true.
What about Catechism classes? It is important for young people to know what they believe, and be able to defend it...but does it really make sense to memorize a book that was written by man? Why not go straight to the source? Catechism is a useful tool to teach the Scriptures, and it should be just that, a tool.
Here is another example: The Sunday before I left for Kentucky, I heard a sermom entitled "The Comfort of the Catechism". It was in the afternoon, so the Minister was using Lords Day 1 as a "text".
"Q. What is your only comfort in life and death? A. That I am not my own but belong with body and soul both in life and death to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ who, with His precious blood has paid for all my sins, freed me from all the power of the Devil, and so preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head. Yes, all things must work together for my Salvation. Therefore, by His Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him."
I typed it out from memory, and I'm sure if you are Reformed you probably didn't need to read it.
These are beautiful words, but it is not the "Comfort of the Catechism" that we read here. It is the comfort of Scripture, as summarized in the Catechism.
My fear is that we have begun to blur the lines between summary and Scripture. It makes me uncomfortable when I hear these documents quoted, when Scripture verses are readily available.
Personally, I have never found any errors in any of our confessions, and I don't think anyone has for many years. I do, however, find it hard to believe that there are none. They are not inspired, and therefore should not be trusted to be 100% accurate.
I say this not to be controversial but out of a desire to serve God and study, learn, and teach His word in the best way possible-the way taught in Scripture.
In order for us to better understand the Scriptures, early Reformers wrote summaries and confessions such as the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort. These documents help us to learn and explain what they found to be the truth in the Word. These are wonderful documents, and can help us understand what we read in the Bible.
I wonder, however, if we sometimes put too much weight on these documents. No one in the Reformed Church will come out and say that they believe that the confessions are inerrant, but I think that sometimes we treat them as if they are. I say this because in the last few weeks I have been to several Youth Group Bible Studies or similar events where leaders would look to the Catechism or Belgic Confession before turning to Scripture in order to answer a question or start a discussion. Why do we not turn to Scripture first? Sometimes it is easier to look to the Catechism, because it is so nicely laid out, but it is so much more fullfilling when the knowledge comes straight from the Word, and we can be fully confident that it is 100% true.
What about Catechism classes? It is important for young people to know what they believe, and be able to defend it...but does it really make sense to memorize a book that was written by man? Why not go straight to the source? Catechism is a useful tool to teach the Scriptures, and it should be just that, a tool.
Here is another example: The Sunday before I left for Kentucky, I heard a sermom entitled "The Comfort of the Catechism". It was in the afternoon, so the Minister was using Lords Day 1 as a "text".
"Q. What is your only comfort in life and death? A. That I am not my own but belong with body and soul both in life and death to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ who, with His precious blood has paid for all my sins, freed me from all the power of the Devil, and so preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head. Yes, all things must work together for my Salvation. Therefore, by His Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him."
I typed it out from memory, and I'm sure if you are Reformed you probably didn't need to read it.
These are beautiful words, but it is not the "Comfort of the Catechism" that we read here. It is the comfort of Scripture, as summarized in the Catechism.
My fear is that we have begun to blur the lines between summary and Scripture. It makes me uncomfortable when I hear these documents quoted, when Scripture verses are readily available.
Personally, I have never found any errors in any of our confessions, and I don't think anyone has for many years. I do, however, find it hard to believe that there are none. They are not inspired, and therefore should not be trusted to be 100% accurate.
I say this not to be controversial but out of a desire to serve God and study, learn, and teach His word in the best way possible-the way taught in Scripture.
posted by Ryan at Monday, April 16, 2007
20 Comments:
wow... i have to say, man, that was very eloquently and logically said. props.
i also agree with your thesis - you raise many good arguments on why we should treat these supporting documents differently than their source. my one point of contention - i have found errors in those documents. :)
oops... forgot to sign my name. 'twas i.
-- Kevin VH
You do bring up a good poit there Ryan, but you do have to remember that the chatechism, while a summary, gives the texts it summarized from right underneath the answer;
Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?
A. That I am not my own(1 Cor 6:19,20) but belong with body and soul both in life and death(Rom 14:7-9) to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ.(1 Cor 3:23, Tit 2:14) He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood(1 Pet 1:18,19, 1 Jn 1:7, 2:2), etc...
So while I do agree with you that maybe too much emphasis is put on these fallible works, you can always check the source texts just to be sure yourself, next time you have a sermon on one.
Thanks Kev. I'd be interested to know the errors that you have found.
Joel, that is true that the texts are right there along with the Catechism. My point is that we should preach and teach from those texts, not from the Catechism itself.
yep.
and i have issues with the 'tried, tested and true' answers many reformed believers will give you---the 'christianese' answers they learned in catechism classes and in the years they spent going to a reformed elementary school and a reformed high school, or even reformed home school. and of course sunday after sunday in reformed church...
sometimes, even when we go straight to scripture, the interpretations we come up with have a definite reformed perspective---which is fine, except that it's based on scripture AND what we know about how our church has interpreted that text for years and it's the accepted, correct, infallible interpretation.
it's just that---an interpretation!
while there might not be errors with the content of the interpretation, there aren't necessarily any errors in a different interpretation or an interpretation you might come to after reading the word for yourself and piecing things together. you need to think for yourself and understand things yourself before it becomes real to you--if you're just regurgitating what the church has taught you all these years, then you're just regurgitating religious rituals and you're not actually taking anything to heart.
and christianity is all about the heart.
first of all, i would like to respond to Joel's statement, that "the chatechism, while a summary, gives the texts it summarized from right underneath the answer". this is a good point, but keep in mind that this only occurs in the Heidelberg Catechism; the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the three creeds do no such thing (and that alone ought to be enough to warrant our concern).
at any rate, for the Catechism, we all tend to rest confident in the fact that all statements are referenced to Biblical texts. what sadly rarely happens, though, is that we examine those texts themselves. usually we just read the Catechism and think to ourselves, "wow, they've got a bunch of texts down at the bottom; this must be okay".
on the contrary, my greatest beef with the Catechism remains that rather than being merely expositional/expository (correct term?), it is written to make statements. there are certain topics that are dealt with in the Catechism, and the texts cited are often used to prove a point. rather than reading a text and taking at face value, the texts are interpreted in a certain light to be pliable in the direction desired.
in addition to citing texts, the Catechism -- as well as the Confession and the Canons -- errs also in its statements. so often there are things written that may be true, or even may likely be true, but aren't the bare facts. and these documents should stick to the bare facts. you know the language i'm thinking of -- where, for instance, in the Catechism, a question is asked and given a two-point answer. who says those are the only two points? maybe there are three. or maybe there is one only. the explanations (which is what the "answers" really are) for God's complex doctrines are overlapping and many. for someone to answer a question succinctly stating that "the answer is as follows" ... and then make a very certain two points, is to limit the doctrine and to say these are the reasons why. maybe not the best example, but the Catechism's Q&A #116: who is to say these God's primary reasons for Christians needing to pray? all true statements, yes. but this answer leaves me wondering -- what other reasons would God Himself list, and what other reasons would i find if i just opened my Bible instead of going "um yup, that seems good".
i just find that these documents were not written to be factual, but interpretive; why the unnecessary words that cloud issues? once again, maybe not the best example, but the Canons' Ch.V, Art.14 states that God preserves/continues/perfects His work of grace in us by His Word and the sacraments. true, yes. but not bare facts -- God also uses praise songs, acts of mercy, His Creation, visions, signs and wonders, and many other things to do this. i am perturbed that the writers of these documents apparently presume to know all the intents and reasons and explanations behind God's complex Word.
anyway, i studied all three of these documents in-depth on my own time a few short years ago, and documented all my questions with things in them. but rather than belabour you with every note that is incoherent to all but my wife and i, suffice it to say that i'm not speaking out of total ignorance, just the ignorance of a limited mind. :)
secondly, i would like to state that a lot of the things contained that i refer to when i say i "have found errors in those documents" are to do with claims on covenental and baptismal theology. which you will, of course, not agree with me on because you either are convinced of paedobaptism and the attached covenental theology or have never truly dealt in-depth with the debate. at any rate, i cite the following as unclear at best and heretical at worst:
> Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 66
> Blegic Confession, XXXIII and XXXIV
> Canons of Dort, Ch.1, Art.17
i find they basically claim infant baptism guarantees salvation, and i would not be surprised if a paedobaptist suppressing his/her presuppositionary interpretations of what's written, reading the words at face value, would come to the same conclusion. on the other hand, i'm also reading it with my understanding of covenental theology, and if the paedobaptist was to read this with his/her understanding of the covenant, they may beg to differ on the meaning.
in conclusion, don't get me wrong; i am wholeheartedly behind supporting documents, and i think for the most part, these documents are well-written and Biblically sound. but way too often we are satisfied with trusting someone else's interpretation of the Bible rather than going to the source ourselves. when did we become too busy or when did we stop caring so much that those same debates people were willing to die for centuries ago are just things we're willing to take someone else' opinion on? i understand the whole time-tested theory -- those things that last are good. but let me ask all those people who don't ever want to question these documents two things:
(a) do you think Luther or Calvin or Augustine or de Bres would have treated these documents as we do? mindless memorization, unquestioning acceptance of another’s claims on issues of great debate, and contentment with man’s words rather than God’s?
(b) when did we get to a point in which if a lot of people were to read what i’ve written, they'd think i was out of line because i wasn't respecting these documents enough? and when are we going to realize that that voiced or unvoiced reaction is really a subconcious accusation of "heresy!", which is elevating man's writings to the level of God's, and in effect is idolatry and heresy in itself?
Kevin
~Waiver~
~Not gonna lie, I didn't read kevin's last post. Don't have time tight now. Please pardon any repitition. ~
Now, for the comment!
Ha! I really like the word christianese. Becasue it is so true. In any intellectual discourse, it is important to be able to say things in your own words. But instead, I ask "what is your only comfort in life and in death" and instantly the language of the Heidelberg Catechsim comes to a reformed person's mind. but it's important to remember that what we belive is exactly that... what WE believe. Not what our church believes or teaches, or what C. Olivianus and Z. Ursinus teach, but what we bleieve. make faith your own!
To Kevin: While I agree with you, I don't think you have truly hit upon the point of the forms of unity. It is true that they do not cover everything, but they, as Ryan pointed out so nicely, are not the Bible, and they don't pretend to cover everything. The fact that our churches treat the catechism as a bible is a problem with our churches, not with the catechism. The catechism is intended as a statement of faith and a guideline to teach others what it is that we believe. It is a helpful guide and it does present our faith in a nice simple format. Which brings me to the second point... well not really but here it is anyways. You say that "my greatest beef with the catechism... is that it's written to make statements." Yes. You're right. It is. And that makes perfect sense to me, seeing as it is a statement of faith. This is precisely what it is intended to do. If it was meant as an explanation of the Bible, it would have been published as a commentary. But it isn't, because the point is not to go through different texts and explain them, the point is to go through many texts and take the main thrust of them all. I hope I explained this correctly. I would also like to say that I am just speaking what I think, I did no actual research or anything, so if I said something that was completely wrong, let me know.
And now for Ben: (this'll be shorter, I promise)
You are correct. It is about what WE believe. Just remember that this we is not only personal, but it is also communal. What I mean is, while Christianity is about the heart, and what you as a person believe in, it is also about the Church, the catholic community of believers. So yes, make faith your own, but share it with others at the same time. Kay I'm done now.
Nate
Kevin writes "my greatest beef with the Catechism remains that...rather than reading a text and taking at face value, the texts are interpreted in a certain light to be pliable in the direction desired." I think that it isn't possible to read wholly without interpretation. At the really basic level there is a huge amount of symbolism in the Bible...take a text like where Christ is called a priest "of the order of Melchizedek". There are a few layers of significance in this passage--Christ is a priest in a different manner than the Levites; He is also a king, etc. Even texts that seem perfectly straightforward eg John 3:16 "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son" need to be understood in light of the rest of Scripture. For example, I overheard a non-Christian ask "what does it mean that He 'gave' His Son? He was going to get Him back, right?" Without suggesting anything about the quality of the Catechism/Confession/Canon's interpretation, I don't think you can fault them for having that interpretation. I'm all for returning to the authority of Scripture, but when you're talking about doctrine you can't "just stick to the bare facts."
At another place: "for someone to answer a question succinctly stating that 'the answer is as follows'... and then make a very certain two points, is to limit the doctrine and to say these are the reasons why." I may be misunderstanding (if so please forgive me) but it seems that your problem here is that the Catechism gives a definitive answer about doctrine? So long as the answer given doesn't contradict Scripture and the Church doesn't obstinately hold on to it in the face of clear Scriptural proof, isn't it good and healthy for the Church to make a clear statement about doctrine?
re: Canons Ch. V Art. 14; the difficulty here is that the authors of the Canons don't mention songs of praise or the revelation of Creation (to pick a couple examples)--surely "meditation upon [His Word]...and [its] promises" involves Psalms of praise and describing the glory of God in Creation? It seems to me to be a very inclusive phrase to say that God continues and perfects His work of grace by the hearing and reading of His Word--surely everything possibly necessary for the Christian life is in the Bible.
I just want to say I really liked Carol-lee's blog, where she points out the fact that Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn. (mark 14:26)
music is in the Bible. YES!
Kev, i appreciate the thoroughness of your research, but i wonder if the beef that you have is a tangent from the discussion that ryan has started. as nate pointed out, the confessions that have been chosen to represent, state, sum up the beliefs to which the church holds are meant to represent, state, and sum up. the problem, which you did mention, is that we mindlessly memorize the words and then immediately forget what it means---all the emphasis in catechism classes, when it comes down to crunch time, is how much of the catechism you know word for word--- when instead, time would be much better invested in teaching people how to read and understand for themselves. because really, all those years ago, people worked hard to get the bible into the hands of everyday people (you and me). it's here for us to look at, to hold, to read it, to touch it, to get out markers and get to know it really well!
this is the frustration that i have with our church--we hold the word at arm's length, and look at it through the lens of these confessions. sure, the Bible is the word of God, but he GAVE it to us. sure, the confessions state things really well, but God speaks directly to us through His word---the Holy Spirit can do his job without the translation and summarization of these confessions. I see them as a cole's notes version of doctrine...kinda like cheating almost...
Now i'm tired and i'm ranting.
(ps. the Belgic Confession and Canons of Dort in my book of praise do actually have texts underneath/beside the articles.]
the catechism is intended to teach and explain the doctrine of Scripture - briefly and helpfully. Reformed Christians agree that it faithfully and accurately repeats the doctrines of Scripture, so we can use and, even, quote the Catechism when we are discussing and learning about what the Bible tells us.
the Catechism is not meant to replace Scripture... this is the same with the BC and CoDort... interesting to note BC Art 7: "We may not consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with the divine Scriptures; nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and person, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all" [how many people THINK Reformed Christians do consider custom, antiquity, etc etc etc.]. the BC in fact points AWAY from itself and towards Scripture.
i agree that we can only be 100% confident of pure truth when it comes straight from the Bible, but there are some/many areas of Scriptures that require some interpretation and wisdom -- and i personally do feel that i have MUCH less skill at interpretation of Scriptures than the many intelligent & gifted people who have developed, evaluated and reviewed these documents/forms.
Ryan i consider you a very "theologically attuned" individual. perhaps this is exactly/partially because of your catechism instruction from when you were a wee lad onwards.
i personally love the catechism and other forms. on one occasion, when being challenged by 11 Roman Catholic friends on topics such as free will, faith & works, the sacraments, predestination and whatnot, i was ever so grateful that a number of catechisms were actually ingrained in my brain... if not for the HC, i'm sure i would have been argued into a corner a few hours earlier. not that i quoted Catechism at them (obviously Scripture is the best tool), but it helped as a summary and reminder to me.
Wow. Long replies.
In my own experience, I've found that the proof texts alone do not always perfectly support the accepted doctrines taught. Often there's a bit of history to study through to figure out how they got Point A out of sources B C and D.
To simply answer your question: yes, often they do get overemphasized. I think each of us should study them and figure out why it is that they are worded the way they are. My yppls society is currently doing an in-depth study on the Belgic Confession, after which I hope to study and compare the Westminster Confession. Ultimately I want to study all the confessions that our churches DON'T hold to as well (like the ones that the CREC accept... 6 or 7 I think). I hope to figure out why we don't hold to the Westminster C. and the 39 Articles of the Anglican church...
So in brief.. I'd encourage all of you to read as much as you can, and study until you are content. If you have doubts, address them, or they will just keep gnawing away.
2 Peter 1:20
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."
...important verse to remember.
Ok, this didn't work last time, so its condensed
the confessions are kind of like the initial summary of a technical research or product developement report. If you read such a summary, you can get a pretty good idea of how someone's product works or the major concept of their research findings. You could understand it and probably explain it to someone else even. But if you wanted to use the technology or research or developement that is described in the report for your own project, or apply it to your own work, you would have to actually read the full-length report, look at the technical drawings, and understand the reasons WHY it works. You could never get that kind of detail from a summary, you must look at the full report.
Its like that with the Word. You can read summaries and confessions until you start writing them out in your sleep, and they might make it easier for you to understand the doctrines that we as reformed Christians accept and confess. However, if you want make this knowledge yours, so that it is a matter of the heart, producing real faith and true joy, you have to go to the source, the actual word, because there is true joy there.
Nice. Way to tie in the engineering there Anton. I like it.
i was doing my report for 1P03 and i was like 'why the heck would anyone want a summary?' Now I know. Incidentally, the merit of the summary in said report was pretty much negated by the fact that it was 200 words out of a 20 page report that was all crap made up by me and my group members.
"but it's important to remember that what we belive is exactly that... what WE believe. Not what ... C. Olivianus and Z. Ursinus teach, but what we bleieve."
thank you, Ben. :) ...and yes, Nate -- i agree. our faith is a communal one -- one of a united faith, not a melting pot of individual belief systems.
Nate, you quoted me as saying: "my greatest beef with the catechism... is that it's written to make statements."
whereas Joel F quoted me as saying: "my greatest beef with the Catechism remains that...rather than reading a text and taking at face value, the texts are interpreted in a certain light to be pliable in the direction desired."
interesting how different people see different parts of my statement to be the main thrust. :) anyway, the combination of my lack of succint statements and different people quoting different parts of my statement has left me saying something i wouldn't say. what i was trying to say was that while i recognize the necessity of these documents being summary-style statements of faith (and yes, i concur that they by necessity may be topical rather than expository) that are tainted with human interpretation, the texts cited often would have to be manipulated to make them suit the point being made -- and at other times, they aren't at all applicable.
i think Tim said it well: "I've found that the proof texts alone do not always perfectly support the accepted doctrines taught." this is what i meant when i said "rather than reading a text and taking at face value, the texts are interpreted in a certain light to be pliable in the direction desired".
however, that being said, i would disagree with you, Joel F, that "when you're talking about doctrine you can't just stick to the bare facts". yes, things are going to be written as interpreted by the human mind -- no, that doesn't mean there's an excuse to not strive to stick to the simplest meaning of the text, rather than cutting through its many layers to use one iota of theology (that is quite obviously thoroughly based on another text's meaning) to derive a citation for a statement in the document.
later you state: "I may be misunderstanding but it seems that your problem here is that the Catechism gives a definitive answer about doctrine? So long as the answer given doesn't contradict Scripture and the Church doesn't obstinately hold on to it in the face of clear Scriptural proof, isn't it good and healthy for the Church to make a clear statement about doctrine?"
i would say no, it is not good and healthy. the doctrine not contradicting Scripture and the church not holding on to it in face of contrary Scripture are both good things, but neither grants license to manufacture doctrine in the first place. doctrine is to be DERIVED from Scripture, exactly as it appears. we are never in the right if we say, "hey look, here's a doctrine that doesn't contradict Scripture, so it must be true". obviously just b/c something isn't clearly stated as wrong, doesn't mean it is right.
and that's my problem; that's what I mean by "stick to the bare facts". just say what's there in the Bible -- these man-made lists and doctrines are not adding anything valuable to the infinitely valuable Word of God.
regarding Canons Ch.V Art.14, you leave out my very argument in your rebuttal. if it were to say that "God continues and perfects His work of grace by the hearing and reading of His Word", i'd be happy. my problem is that the Article goes on to include the "sacraments", while excluding all these other means.
anyway, moving on ... Justine. yes, absolutely what I'm talking about is a tangent from the original discussion. which is why i originally merely commended Ryan's post without getting into this topic at all. only at Ryan's request did i expound. :)
Sarah VP: !!! what book of praise do you have?
...i find it interesting that you go out of your way to state that these documents are "intended to teach and explain the doctrine of Scripture" and that it they are "not meant to replace Scripture". i don't think anyone doubts the intent or motive, but rather the outcome!
i also find it very dangerous to have the attitude that often accompanies the feeling "i have MUCH less skill at interpretation of Scriptures than the many intelligent & gifted people who have developed, evaluated and reviewed these documents/forms". true? absolutely. but often people have come from the perspective and use it as a reason to blindly accept documents put before us. these men were not gods. they were Christians, just like you, me, some of our parents, and some of our grandparents. and there is no reason we should just accept stuff rather than put the effort in to learn the theology from its source just like they did. i think the greatest thing these men left us was not the documents, but the example of uncompromising searching of Scripture for answers, and i think they'd be the last ones to want anyone to accept their doctrine over finding it out for ourselves -- just as Paul instructed us to not take HIS word for it (and that WAS part of God's inspired Word!).
people say don't like questioning our elders and those who have gone before us. they point out how writings have stood the test of time. well, maybe they stood the test of time merely because no one bothered to combat them! obviously, i'm not claiming that's what happenned, but it just goes to show. i was once in a class on the three documents in the back of the blue hymnal. i would regularly question what my pastor taught and state my opposing view if i didn't see how it could be true. obviously, 9 times out of 10 i would accept what he said, but i was willing to stand up for my beliefs the other 1 time. some of my classmates thought i was almost heretical for questioning the pastor, but i'm not Roman Catholic, and he's not the pope. and he would have been the last one to tell me not to question what he said. and that's one reason i respected him so much. and the same applies to the writers of these documents.
to conclude this bit of verbal diahrrea, i want to quote Time, who quoted Peter: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."
wow, kev, long comment! haha.
here's a verse that relates:
1 peter 3:15:
'But in your hearts, set apart CHRIST as LORD. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..'
i just think the wording here is interesting--it's a long, awkward sentence, and if you wrote it in a paper your prof would circle it and tell you to reword it. so it's this awkward for a reason: first, we need to be ready to give AN answer...for THE reason for THE hope that we have... there's only one Reason, and there's only one Hope, but there is not only one answer...each answer is going to be different from the last. not different in doctrine, but different in how that answer is confessed. i don't think that the difference in answer needs to be a huge source of division...but this is what it has developed into.
i also want to point out, i think mostly for myself, that we need to do this in gentleness and respect...this is hard to do sometimes when we have all these divisions distracting us from our answers.
Hi Ryan,
Interesting post - you've obviously caused some discussion. I definitely agree with you that there is a tendency in our circles to be almost too confessional. However, I'm not sure if your argument as you present it really holds.
Your argument seems to be that we cannot 100% trust the confessions simply because they are the work of man. Therefore you say, "it is so much more fulfilling when the knowledge comes straight from the Word, and we can be fully confident that it is 100% true."
But is it really true that we cannot 100% trust something just because a human says it? If I say, "God created the heavens and the earth," you would 100% trust that statement, even though a human said it. Or consider the part of the Belgic Confession that Sarah quoted. Can you 100% trust the Belgic Confession when it says that we should not consider the writings of men as equal to the truth of God? If you can't, then you're not 100% sure of the very point you're defending in your post! Notice the BC does not say, however, that you can't trust the writings of men; it simply says they're not of equal value.
The danger of your view is that it equates the truth with the Bible. Actually, nothing is true because the Bible says so; rather, everything that the Bible refers to is true. The historical events in the Bible are true because they really happened in history. When the Bible refers to them it does not make them true but testifies to their reality. Because truth and the Bible cannot be directly equated (the Bible does not cause truth, it refers to what is true), we can also 100% trust men who refer to what is true.
The bigger question then is: is everything in the Confessions true? In that light Kevin said that the confessions teach that infant baptism guarantees salvation...????
None of the Reformers held this view; in fact they emphatically rejected it, so I would be interested to hear how their confessions teach it. But I agree that there may be incomplete aspects to the confessions and also errors within them (LD 38, perhaps?). But not BECAUSE they're written by men. It is very possible for a man's writing to be 100% true. As long as we teach what Scriptures teach, we can be confident.
Since other people brought in career-related allegory...
It's like a java doc. Just the methods and their documentation, so you can use them.
But really you need the source code if you want to fully understand the program.
Dave I still think you're being too nitpicky.. because while we can 100% trust men who refer to what is true.. we cannot 100% trust them to have referred correctly to the truth.. or to have interpreted the truth correctly. If you know what I mean. Essentially, the point is, man is fallible.. we mess things up. Perhaps we messed something up in our confessions.. it is certainly possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home