Confessionalism and the Salters' Hall Synod

[JonC]

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)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are redefining terms. Your argument was that Sola Scriptura goes beyond God’s Word into what it teaches (what is written in Scripture and what is “necessarily contained”). Every heresy comes not from what is written but from what you would define as “necessarily contained”.

It is not my argument. You are the man with the history degree; as you were so eager to tell us. You know that creeds and confessions have been about since the earliest times and that they have been introduced, not to spread heresies and false teaching, but to resist them. But if you want some sola Scriptura, here you go: "This is My body." And if that is not enough, try this: "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him.' You will not find a text that says, "Actually, My body is not real food, but it is symbolic." To arrive at the truth you have to compare Scripture with Scripture and show that symbolism is 'necessarily contained' in the Bible.

Your definition of “necessarily contained” is subjective. It is what you believe is taught. Throughout history we have had Christians come to different interpretations, but they were able to dialogue because they recognized interpretation for what it was. You don’t. You believe every theory that blows up your skirt is Scripture itself.

Once again, you are the man with the history degree, but I seem to be the one who actually knows some history. I have given the account of the salters' Hall Synod and the disaster that followed the decision not to impose a creedal statement upon the Unitarians within the churches. I have shown you the difficulties that there was at the Council of Nicaea because Arius stuck to a profession of Sola Scriptura and it was impossible to get to the bottom of his error until a creedal statement was drafted. That is how they came up with the Nicaean Creed. I have shown you that the J.W.s support Sola Scriptura. What have you given me? Nothing but your own opinions. And you actually are the man who believes every theory that blows up your skirt by your own account. You changed your mind over Penal Substitution; you are 'carried about with every wind of doctrine' because you have nothing to anchor your faith except your own intellect which, I have to tell you, is not up to the job.

The reason I mentioned 1 John 2:2 was as example. No scholar has, as far as I know, claimed that the word “propitiation” means “bearing wrath” (not even those who believe that Jesus bore God’s wrath). And no, you never offered “proof” because the thread was closed (you addressed why you think Jesus had to bear God’s wrath, not why 1 John 2:2 demanded that “propitiation” be defined as “bearing wrath”). We can drop that topic here as I don’t want to hijack this thread – but you can start one demonstrating abandoning the traditional definition for yours.

My point is that Scripture (what is written) has to be the authority of our faith, even as we build doctrine of that teaching, but we can never hold our understanding, our theologies, our interpretations, or our philosophy over what is written.

Well here we agree absolutely. 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience' How many times do I have to write that out? All creeds and confessions are subsidiary to the Scriptures. That truth is 'necessarily contained' in the statement above.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate, I probably cannot articulate my objection to your (and a few other's) idea of what you call "Sola Scriptura" better than R.C. Sproul did in the attached article:

"Protestant churches have tended to be confessional in character. Subscription to confessions and creeds has been mandatory for the clergy and parish of many denominations. Confessions have been used as a test of orthodoxy and conformity to the faith and practice of the church. But the confessions are all regarded as reformable. They are considered reformable because they are considered fallible. But the Sola Scriptura principles in its classic application regards the Scripture as irreformable because of its infallibility." R.C. Sproul

Sola Scriptura: Crucial To Evangelicalism by R.C. Sproul

Yes, absolutely. That is why Sproul held to the Westminster Confession, or at least, was in a denomination that did so. 'The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. )1689: If any confession can be shown not to be conformable to the Scriptures, it should be amended or thrown out. The WCF fails on the question of baptism, therefore I don't conform to it. With regard to the 1689, I am not convinced that the Pope is the 'man of sin,' but I believe, like Spurgeon, who reprinted it in 1855, that 'This ancient document is a most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us.'

There is another problem which the older creeds face: they do not consider the problems that churches face today and say nothing about women preachers or same-sex marriage for example. The creeds are cessationist and the statement of the 'sufficiency' of Scripture is helpful against charismatic influence, but there is no specific statement on that issue. Therefore it will necessary to add a codicil to the confessions as the FIEC has done to its Basis of Faith.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No creed (as an authority for our faith) but the Bible! ...Long live Sola Scripture! ....God save the President! ..... Kilroy was here.

You ... I’m convinced you have flipped your wig. Tally “ho” Mr. President!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is not my argument. You are the man with the history degree; as you were so eager to tell us. You know that creeds and confessions have been about since the earliest times and that they have been introduced, not to spread heresies and false teaching, but to resist them. But if you want some sola Scriptura, here you go: "This is My body." And if that is not enough, try this: "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him.' You will not find a text that says, "Actually, My body is not real food, but it is symbolic." To arrive at the truth you have to compare Scripture with Scripture and show that symbolism is 'necessarily contained'

Better answer STEVE

 

[JonC]

It is not my argument. You are the man with the history degree; as you were so eager to tell us. You know that creeds and confessions have been about since the earliest times and that they have been introduced, not to spread heresies and false teaching, but to resist them. But if you want some sola Scriptura, here you go: "This is My body." And if that is not enough, try this: "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him.' You will not find a text that says, "Actually, My body is not real food, but it is symbolic." To arrive at the truth you have to compare Scripture with Scripture and show that symbolism is 'necessarily contained' in the Bible.

Once again, you are the man with the history degree, but I seem to be the one who actually knows some history. I have given the account of the salters' Hall Synod and the disaster that followed the decision not to impose a creedal statement upon the Unitarians within the churches. I have shown you the difficulties that there was at the Council of Nicaea because Arius stuck to a profession of Sola Scriptura and it was impossible to get to the bottom of his error until a creedal statement was drafted. That is how they came up with the Nicaean Creed. I have shown you that the J.W.s support Sola Scriptura. What have you given me? Nothing but your own opinions. And you actually are the man who believes every theory that blows up your skirt by your own account. You changed your mind over Penal Substitution; you are 'carried about with every wind of doctrine' because you have nothing to anchor your faith except your own intellect which, I have to tell you, is not up to the job.

The reason I mentioned 1 John 2:2 was as example. No scholar has, as far as I know, claimed that the word “propitiation” means “bearing wrath” (not even those who believe that Jesus bore God’s wrath). And no, you never offered “proof” because the thread was closed (you addressed why you think Jesus had to bear God’s wrath, not why 1 John 2:2 demanded that “propitiation” be defined as “bearing wrath”). We can drop that topic here as I don’t want to hijack this thread – but you can start one demonstrating abandoning the traditional definition for yours.

Well here we agree absolutely. 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience' How many times do I have to write that out? All creeds and confessions are subsidiary to the Scriptures. That truth is 'necessarily contained' in the statement above.

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".

 

[JonC]

You ... I’m convinced you have flipped your wig. Tally “ho” Mr. President!

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

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[JonC]

It is not my argument. You are the man with the history degree;

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.

There is another problem which the older creeds face: they do not consider the problems that churches face today

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).

To arrive at the truth you have to compare Scripture with Scripture and show that symbolism is 'necessarily contained' in the Bible.

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.

 

[Reformed]

Then why not just ask the man what he believes about certain doctrines?

I think it should be just the opposite. If you ask ten people what they believe you will come up with ten different answers. You will also engage in a time sink that will exhaust you. When a church has a well-vetted doctrinal statement an individual does not need to spin their wheels trying to figure out what a church believes.

At my previous church, we subscribed to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith as our doctrinal statement. We did not believe the Confession was equal with scripture; we believed it was a faithful and accurate statement of biblical doctrine that has withstood the test of time. So, if a prospective member wanted to know what we believed about scripture, the Holy Spirit, the Lord's Supper, the Church et. al, they could find out without a protracted back-and-forth. The Confession also acted as an arbiter when doctrinal conflict arose. While we ultimately make our appeal to scripture, we could point to the Confession and say, "This is our definitive statement on what we believe on this issue". Churches that do not subscribe to a confession typically use their doctrinal statements for the same purpose.

 

[JonC]

I think it should be just the opposite. If you ask ten people what they believe you will come up with ten different answers. You will also engage in a time sink that will exhaust you. When a church has a well-vetted doctrinal statement an individual does not need to spin their wheels trying to figure out what a church believes.

At my previous church, we subscribed to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith as our doctrinal statement. We did not believe the Confession was equal with scripture; we believed it was a faithful and accurate statement of biblical doctrine that has withstood the test of time. So, if a prospective member wanted to know what we believed about scripture, the Holy Spirit, the Lord's Supper, the Church et. al, they could find out without a protracted back-and-forth. The Confession also acted as an arbiter when doctrinal conflict arose. While we ultimately make our appeal to scripture, we could point to the Confession and say, "This is our definitive statement on what we believe on this issue". Churches that do not subscribe to a confession typically use their doctrinal statements for the same purpose.

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).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

I am me of course

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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).

That is providing churches either have the will and the capacity to even teach orthodox doctrine. Most around here have forfeited the Important job of teaching doctrine for an hour long feel good pep rally. The only ones I see interested in doctrine, if you can call it that, are the Russian churches and as they become American gravitate to “feel good” churches.

 

[Reformed]

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).

As a general rule, most churches that subscribe to a Reformed confession teach doctrine. The two go hand-in-hand. This is especially true in Reformed Baptist churches.

 

[Reformed]

That is providing churches either have the will and the capacity to even teach orthodox doctrine. Most around here have forfeited the Important job of teaching doctrine for an hour long feel good pep rally. The only ones I see interested in doctrine, if you can call it that, are the Russian churches and as they become American gravitate to “feel good” churches.

There are still some churches in North Jersey that teach doctrine. Unless it has changed, Hawthorne Bible Church comes to mind. Also, Englewood Baptist Church, Paramus Bible Church, Christ Our Hope Church (Lyndhurst), Bread of Life Fellowship (Wayne), Trinity Baptist Church (Montville) et. al. Do these churches have issues? Can you poke holes in them? Sure. The main prerequisite of a sound local church is to get the gospel right. Everything else is secondary, and I do mean everything. I am not saying there are not other important doctrines or practices that should be considered when evaluating a local church. However, the primary issue - the foundational issue - is the gospel.

When I lived in Kearny I used to attend Oakwood Baptist Church. The pastor was a faithful and diligent teacher of the Word of God. Occasionally we would visit Brookdale Baptist Church for events. It was also a good bible-teaching church. Times change. Oakwood Baptist is now a Calvary Chapel and Brookdale is a shell of its former self. I enjoyed attending Hawthorne's Monday evening Bible school. Pastor Herrmann Braunlin started the Bible school in the 1940's. The Bible school still exists, training lay leaders for service in the local church. Jack Wyrtzen, co-founder of Word of Life Fellowship, took courses there. Jacksonville Chapel was also a well-known bible-teaching church, but I cannot vouch for the veracity of that statement today.

My point is that there are some churches in North Jersey that get the gospel right, although I readily admit there are less of them today than when I lived in my home state. I have a feeling that if I still lived there I would have to find a local church that at least gets the gospel right and then find the closest match I could on other issues. Then it would be my responsibility to build into the lives of others. OK. So maybe I cannot find that perfect Reformed Baptist church that dots its "I's" and crosses its "T's" on each doctrinal point I hold to. But in that church are people who are part of the body of Christ. They need me as much as I need them. It would be wrong of me to go the way of A.W. Pink and give up on the corporate body of Christ. We need one another.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are still some churches in North Jersey that teach doctrine. Unless it has changed, Hawthorne Bible Church comes to mind. Also, Englewood Baptist Church, Paramus Bible Church, Christ Our Hope Church (Lyndhurst), Bread of Life Fellowship (Wayne), Trinity Baptist Church (Montville) et. al. Do these churches have issues? Can you poke holes in them? Sure. The main prerequisite of a sound local church is to get the gospel right. Everything else is secondary, and I do mean everything. I am not saying there are not other important doctrines or practices that should be considered when evaluating a local church. However, the primary issue - the foundational issue - is the gospel.

When I lived in Kearny I used to attend Oakwood Baptist Church. The pastor was a faithful and diligent teacher of the Word of God. Occasionally we would visit Brookdale Baptist Church for events. It was also a good bible-teaching church. Times change. Oakwood Baptist is now a Calvary Chapel and Brookdale is a shell of its former self. I enjoyed attending Hawthorne's Monday evening Bible school. Pastor Herrmann Braunlin started the Bible school in the 1940's. The Bible school still exists, training lay leaders for service in the local church. Jack Wyrtzen, co-founder of Word of Life Fellowship, took courses there. Jacksonville Chapel was also a well-known bible-teaching church, but I cannot vouch for the veracity of that statement today.

My point is that there are some churches in North Jersey that get the gospel right, although I readily admit there are less of them today than when I lived in my home state. I have a feeling that if I still lived there I would have to find a local church that at least gets the gospel right and then find the closest match I could on other issues. Then it would be my responsibility to build into the lives of others. OK. So maybe I cannot find that perfect Reformed Baptist church that dots its "I's" and crosses its "T's" on each doctrinal point I hold to. But in that church are people who are part of the body of Christ. They need me as much as I need them. It would be wrong of me to go the way of A.W. Pink and give up on the corporate body of Christ. We need one another.

Those churches are not in my neighborhood, so you can take local outa the equation.

 

[JonC]

That is providing churches either have the will and the capacity to even teach orthodox doctrine. Most around here have forfeited the Important job of teaching doctrine for an hour long feel good pep rally. The only ones I see interested in doctrine, if you can call it that, are the Russian churches and as they become American gravitate to “feel good” churches.

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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 come from a Roman Catholic background and you are correct, they impose their doctrine on you and for justification it’s essentually cause we say so. Moving from that I studied scripture, I studied books, I studied, different Doctrines etc so I put credence to Westminster when I went to a Presbyterian Church and went to a Reformed Baptist Church in Montville ( a drive for me and not in my neighborhood) they were also a bit anal and I just could not fit in there, but I did study the ole 1689. You know what, I have enough scriptural foundation to get it. I don’t want to be a theologian, I don’t want to be a Greek scholar... so I’m OK with being “ Me and my Bible”

 

[JonC]

I come from a Roman Catholic background and you are correct, they impose their doctrine on you and for justification it’s essentually cause we say so. Moving from that I studied scripture, I studied books, I studied, different Doctrines etc so I put credence to Westminster when I went to a Presbyterian Church and went to a Reformed Baptist Church in Montville ( a drive for me and not in my neighborhood) they were also a bit anal and I just could not fit in there, but I did study the ole 1689. You know what, I have enough scriptural foundation to get it. I don’t want to be a theologian, I don’t want to be a Greek scholar... so I’m OK with being “ Me and my Bible”

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).

 

[JonC]

As a general rule, most churches that subscribe to a Reformed confession teach doctrine. The two go hand-in-hand. This is especially true in Reformed Baptist churches.

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.