Featured Confessionalism and the Salters' Hall Synod

A few more ideas to consider:

"But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3). Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4)." John MacArthur

"The force and clarity of the Apostle’s teaching here are striking. In spite of the rich oral teaching Timothy had, he is to preach the Scriptures because those Scriptures give him clearly all that he needs for wisdom and preparation to instruct the people of God in faith and all good works. The Scripture makes him wise for salvation, and equips him with everything he needs for doing every good work required of the preacher of God. The sufficiency and clarity of the Word are taught in this one section of Scripture over and over again. John Chrysostom paraphrased the meaning of Paul’s words to Timothy this way: “You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you would know.” - Robert Godfrey

“I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit.” (Luther, Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per bullam Leonis X. novissimam damnatorum)

 

What aspects of the Westminster Confession (or what ever Confession you hold) do you view as incorporating human reasoning and therefore fallible with the possibility of error and subject to reform or revision?

Insofar as Communion, you are missing the point. I am not talking about some inability to recognize symbolism (e.g.,"I am the Bread of Life") but placing our theories alongside Scripture as its equal under the misunderstanding of "necessarily contained".

 

Who are you who are wise in the ways of science?

 

Keeping our disagreement on point:

I never said that we should not/ could not interpret Scripture. My comment was that Scripture alone (“what is written”) should be our authority and not what we believe to be implied. When we start believing that our theology is implied in Scripture as “necessarily contained”, yet without basis from “what is written”, then we are on the same grounds as the Catholic Church. If your definition of “scripture alone” is correct, then the RCC falls into this category because they base the authority of the Church as given by Christ as recorded in Scripture.

We must go back to what is written in Scripture to give what we believe to be taught credence. We cannot put our differing theologies alongside “what is written” as its equal. This is not Sola Scriptura.

I am also not suggesting that we refrain from developing doctrines via systematic theology. My suggestion is that we maintain a healthy understanding of what is ours and what is God’s. I believe we should pay attention to Sproul’s comment that Creeds and Confessions are not infallible (they are not “necessarily contained” in Scripture).

Where you have misunderstood me here is that I am not talking about Penal Substitution. I am talking about the ability to turn to Scripture and say "this is why I believe such and such" rather than "Scripture demands such and such". I am talking about being faithful to the biblical text.

 

I don't have a history degree. If I had continued that would have been the route I went. I have an undergraduate degree in religion and a graduate degree in theology. But that is neither here nor there. Consider men like A. W. Tozer who had no formal education. We can't accept or dismiss what people say because of their credentials. Scripture is where we turn, not academia.

Absolutely. This is one aspect of theological development that you may find interesting. You can often see the problems, issues, or circumstances being addressed through the theology of the past (you can see, for example, the Reformation in the theology the Reformers developed).

Exactly. But this is not what you were doing. You declared that "propitiation" be defined as "wrath bearing" because you believed it "necessarily contained" in Scripture. What you did was turn theology onto Scripture. Even if you are right that Christ bore God's wrath, you would be wrong to alter Scripture itself to express that idea in that one passage.

When we examine our theology we turn to Scripture (to what is written). I am not, nor have I ever, suggested that we do not do systematic theology. I am suggesting that we maintain a healthy understanding between "what is written" and what is derived from what is written.

 

The problem is that so many now do not know the doctrine behind such confessions. They don't really know what we believe or why they believe what they believe (many cannot turn to Scripture to justify their belief). And it is an indictment against the Church in general - we've allowed doctrine to slip.

Sooner or later we have to turn back to teaching doctrine.If it takes time then perhaps it is time worth taking. With the church I told you about it would take about 3 months to become a member. (This is not the practice of the church I now attend, but I see merit in such practices).

 

I agree (except the Russian part, as I have no experience there).

I believe much of the issue is people were at one time told what to believe without that belief being related to Scripture. A belief without the accompanying foundation in Scripture is a superficial belief easily shed. That's why I am very cautious when people use confessions as an authority rather than a description.

 

I understand. We do not have many Reformed Baptist churches here (we have two I believe, and they are both legalistic and dead). Our Presbyterian churches are not fairing so well either.

My concern about the Westminster Confession is not the Confession itself (if held as Sproul speaks of) but that it has been used to defend doctrine rather than as a description of what one believes.

For example, if you asked me what I believed about about "Scripture alone" I may very well cite the Westminster Confession. I believe Scripture is our authority and is sufficient; that the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life is expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (from what is expressly set down in Scripture). So if I were to defend my position on Sola Scriptura I would not look to this Confession as an authority but turn to those passages from which I derived my position. This is where @Martin Marprelate fails - not in holding to a confession as descriptive of his theology but in holding to the confession as its authority and reading into Scripture what he has deduced from it (redefining words to force a meaning, for example).

 

I'm not sure this is correct, at least not in a meaningful (verifiable) way. We have a handful of churches (Baptist and non-Baptist) that subscribe to a Reformed confession, but none of them are healthy churches. That said, I am not in any way doubting the opposite true in your experience.