The Bible and Secondary Documents

[Reformed]

What type of balance does the Bible have with secondary documents such as creeds, confessions, commentaries, and books? Baptists have historically been known as people of the Book (i.e. the Bible). But let us not get ahead of ourselves. When someone says that they believe the Bible is the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice they are confessing that as truth. Since that statement is not in scripture, should we accept it? What about printed Sunday School lessons or even sermon outlines that churches sometimes put in their bulletins? They are not the Bible, so do they have any worth? How about books and commentaries that are written by men like John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon, Chuck Swindoll, Dave Hunt, John Piper et al. (I am including authors from inside and outside "my camp")? Are they helpful to a Christian? Lastly, what about the historic creeds and confessions of the church? Be careful how you answer this or you may gore one of your sacred cows.

The fact is that the Bible is the primary document of the church. Only the written Word of God can declare Him with authority. Only the Bible is the source for all matters of faith and practice. But what of secondary documents? Do they have a place? If we are honest we will say that they do. Confessions have worth to the degree that they accurately interpret scripture. They are tantamount to flying a flag up the pole and saying, "This is what I believe!" It provides other like-minded Christians a sound view of what scripture teaches. The same thing with books and commentaries. We can read the conclusions of authors and then study the Bible for ourselves to see if those things are true. I will even go an additional step and say that without secondary documents we run the risk of walking into error. As a Reformed Baptist, I look at the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith as a commentary on major doctrines of the Bible. I believe the framers of the 1689 LBC did a good job in wrestling with the Bible to determine what it teaches on various doctrines. While the 1689 LBC is not the Bible, it is (IMHO) a faithful interpretation of Bible doctrine. I have spent a good deal of time studying doctrine myself. I will never stop studying. I profit greatly from the writings of men. I simply keep in mind that these men are fallible creatures who are offering their opinion based on their research. I have a duty to take their conclusions and compare them to scripture. If (after doing that) I find that their conclusions are Biblical, I can use them to my profit. If they are not, I discard them.

 

[Reformed1689]

I think Sinclair Ferguson said it best.

For example, you might say, "The Bible is our confession." But that wouldn't help us. All that tells us is that the contents of this book constitute our confession. The real question is, "Tell me what are the contents of this book are."

Ligonier Ministries

 

[37818]

Statments of what one believes are just that. They do not supersede what it is we are believing in.

The problem I have with creeds is when they become the final authority over how one is to understand the word of God.

For example, I am premillennial post tribualational in my view as to when the rapture will take place. I will join a baptist church which teaches pre trib rapture if the statment of faith does not state that, but that the church statement of faith believes in a pre millennium second coming of Christ. But if the church stated in its statment of faith it believed in a pre tribulation rapture, I would not join that church. I might choose to attend that church, but I would not joint it as a voting member. That would not be honest.

 

[Yeshua1]

What type of balance does the Bible have with secondary documents such as creeds, confessions, commentaries, and books? Baptists have historically been known as people of the Book (i.e. the Bible). But let us not get ahead of ourselves. When someone says that they believe the Bible is the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice they are confessing that as truth. Since that statement is not in scripture, should we accept it? What about printed Sunday School lessons or even sermon outlines that churches sometimes put in their bulletins? They are not the Bible, so do they have any worth? How about books and commentaries that are written by men like John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon, Chuck Swindoll, Dave Hunt, John Piper et al. (I am including authors from inside and outside "my camp")? Are they helpful to a Christian? Lastly, what about the historic creeds and confessions of the church? Be careful how you answer this or you may gore one of your sacred cows.

The fact is that the Bible is the primary document of the church. Only the written Word of God can declare Him with authority. Only the Bible is the source for all matters of faith and practice. But what of secondary documents? Do they have a place? If we are honest we will say that they do. Confessions have worth to the degree that they accurately interpret scripture. They are tantamount to flying a flag up the pole and saying, "This is what I believe!" It provides other like-minded Christians a sound view of what scripture teaches. The same thing with books and commentaries. We can read the conclusions of authors and then study the Bible for ourselves to see if those things are true. I will even go an additional step and say that without secondary documents we run the risk of walking into error. As a Reformed Baptist, I look at the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith as a commentary on major doctrines of the Bible. I believe the framers of the 1689 LBC did a good job in wrestling with the Bible to determine what it teaches on various doctrines. While the 1689 LBC is not the Bible, it is (IMHO) a faithful interpretation of Bible doctrine. I have spent a good deal of time studying doctrine myself. I will never stop studying. I profit greatly from the writings of men. I simply keep in mind that these men are fallible creatures who are offering their opinion based on their research. I have a duty to take their conclomusions and compare them to scripture. If (after doing that) I find that their conclusions are Biblical, I can use them to my profit. If they are not, I discard them.

The bible only is where we derive doctrines and practices from, but God also has given to us godly and gifted teachers and theologians to learn from!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Bible is our primary authority as @Reformed has said, but JWs and other heretical groups also claim to follow it. The question is: what do you believe the Bible teaches? And for that you need some sort of creed or confession.

Here's an extended extract from my blog on an event that happened almost exactly 300 years ago:

Our story begins in Exeter, Devon in 1717. It involved two Presbyterian ministers, Joseph Hallett and James Peirce. Hallett was also the Principal of a Dissenting academy in the city. Over a period of time, these two gentlemen became enamoured of William Whiston’s theories, especially his denial of the deity of Christ. Rather than give up their positions in their respective churches, Peirce and Hallett practised deception upon their congregations. Peirce wrote:-

“In conversation, I had always avoided such intricate points, and might easily do so still. But my chief concern was about my preaching and praying. Concerning the former, I was resolved to keep more close to the Scripture expressions than ever, and venture to say very little in my own words of a matter about which I was in such doubt myself. As to the latter, I could not find there was any occasion for making much alteration, whichever notion should appear like the truth. I was by this time thoroughly convinced that the common doctrine was not according to the Scriptures, and was settled in my present opinion, and from my first coming I avoided the common doxology.”

Yet at the same time, in a sermon on Presbyterian ordination, he declared, “Those who are admitted to the office should be believers. The necessity of this is very obvious- that which is necessary in a private Christian, to give him a right in the sight in the sight of God to the communion of the Church, must be for those who are admitted into the ministry- a profession of faith.

Peirce and Hallett were not allowed to carry on their deceptions for very long. Indeed, Hallett and his students did not long conceal their admiration for the theories of Whiston. As for Peirce, “There was a vacuity in his ministrations felt by all who looked for spiritual nourishment……many freely expressed their doubts as to the soundness of [his] views.”. As a result, Peirce was requested to preach a sermon on the deity of Christ, in which his teaching was, to say the least, ambiguous. Suddenly suspicion fell upon all the Dissenting ministers in Exeter and the surrounding areas. Only one Pastor, John Lavington, “seemed to adhere firmly to the Trinitarian system”.

In the event, seven Presbyterian ministers were invited to attend a meeting in Exeter with thirteen deputed laymen to establish the true state of affairs. The ministers were invited to declare their faith in the Trinity in the words of the First of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Now here is going down to Egypt for help with a vengeance! What had happened to the Westminster Confession of Faith that Non-conformists needed to go to an Anglican document to prove their orthodoxy? It seems that it had already fallen into disuse. Peirce, Hallett and some others declined this proposal, protesting that the Scriptures alone were the true rule of faith. “Fair enough,” replied their inquisitors, “But what doctrine do you deduce from the Scriptures? Do you draw from the Bible the teachings that have been held by the Church from ancient times and taught by the Presbyterian Church of which you are ministers?” When the ministers again refused to make an explicit declaration of their faith, the meeting drew to a close and the congregations served by these men were split. Some declined to listen any longer to their teaching, but others, whether unaware of, or unconcerned by, the controversy, continued to hear them.


Read the full story here: Learning The Lessons of History (1)

 

[Reformed]

The Bible is our primary authority as @Reformed has said, but JWs and other heretical groups also claim to follow it. The question is: what do you believe the Bible teaches? And for that you need some sort of creed or confession.

Here's an extended extract from my blog on an event that happened almost exactly 300 years ago:

Our story begins in Exeter, Devon in 1717. It involved two Presbyterian ministers, Joseph Hallett and James Peirce. Hallett was also the Principal of a Dissenting academy in the city. Over a period of time, these two gentlemen became enamoured of William Whiston’s theories, especially his denial of the deity of Christ. Rather than give up their positions in their respective churches, Peirce and Hallett practised deception upon their congregations. Peirce wrote:-

“In conversation, I had always avoided such intricate points, and might easily do so still. But my chief concern was about my preaching and praying. Concerning the former, I was resolved to keep more close to the Scripture expressions than ever, and venture to say very little in my own words of a matter about which I was in such doubt myself. As to the latter, I could not find there was any occasion for making much alteration, whichever notion should appear like the truth. I was by this time thoroughly convinced that the common doctrine was not according to the Scriptures, and was settled in my present opinion, and from my first coming I avoided the common doxology.”

Yet at the same time, in a sermon on Presbyterian ordination, he declared, “Those who are admitted to the office should be believers. The necessity of this is very obvious- that which is necessary in a private Christian, to give him a right in the sight in the sight of God to the communion of the Church, must be for those who are admitted into the ministry- a profession of faith.

Peirce and Hallett were not allowed to carry on their deceptions for very long. Indeed, Hallett and his students did not long conceal their admiration for the theories of Whiston. As for Peirce, “There was a vacuity in his ministrations felt by all who looked for spiritual nourishment……many freely expressed their doubts as to the soundness of [his] views.”. As a result, Peirce was requested to preach a sermon on the deity of Christ, in which his teaching was, to say the least, ambiguous. Suddenly suspicion fell upon all the Dissenting ministers in Exeter and the surrounding areas. Only one Pastor, John Lavington, “seemed to adhere firmly to the Trinitarian system”.

In the event, seven Presbyterian ministers were invited to attend a meeting in Exeter with thirteen deputed laymen to establish the true state of affairs. The ministers were invited to declare their faith in the Trinity in the words of the First of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Now here is going down to Egypt for help with a vengeance! What had happened to the Westminster Confession of Faith that Non-conformists needed to go to an Anglican document to prove their orthodoxy? It seems that it had already fallen into disuse. Peirce, Hallett and some others declined this proposal, protesting that the Scriptures alone were the true rule of faith. “Fair enough,” replied their inquisitors, “But what doctrine do you deduce from the Scriptures? Do you draw from the Bible the teachings that have been held by the Church from ancient times and taught by the Presbyterian Church of which you are ministers?” When the ministers again refused to make an explicit declaration of their faith, the meeting drew to a close and the congregations served by these men were split. Some declined to listen any longer to their teaching, but others, whether unaware of, or unconcerned by, the controversy, continued to hear them.


Read the full story here: Learning The Lessons of History (1)

When someone says they believe in no other Creed but the Bible, they have effectively muzzled any opinion they have about scripture. If they open their mouth to proclaim it's truths they are voicing their opinion of what it says. That is no different than a Creed or confession. If that sounds like a ridiculous statement, I concur. We should all desire to hear the Word proclaimed in power and truth. However, how invaluable is it to know what a preacher, author, or committee believes about scripture?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[loDebar]

We obey the Word, consider and contemplate great men's opinions and foresight. We ignore those whose opinions do not match scripture.

 

[kyredneck]

When someone says they believe in no other Creed but the Bible, they have effectively muzzled any opinion they have about scripture.

So you're recanting your 'scripture alone' mantra? Or are you still clinging to it and feel compelled to keep posting on the validity of creeds in order to justify your adherence to creeds while still professing 'scripture alone'. Why are you so persistent with justifying the use of creeds?

1. Sola Gratia (Grace alone)
2. Sola Fide (Faith alone)
3. Solus Christus (Christ alone)
4. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)
5. Soli Deo Gloria (To the glory of God alone)

[add]

I've concluded a long way back that you reformed types parrot the 'faith alone' mantra but when it comes right down to scrutiny you don't really really really believe in justification by faith alone you just like the sound of it or something. You don't really really really believe in 'scripture alone' either do you?

 

[Reformed1689]

So you're recanting your 'scripture alone' mantra? Or are you still clinging to it and feel compelled to keep posting on the validity of creeds in order to justify your adherence to creeds while still professing 'scripture alone'.

Who said we are adhering to a creed? Rather, we use the creeds to explain Scripture. That does not go against Sola Scriptura. It is the exposition of Scripture.

I've concluded a long way back that you reformed types parrot the 'faith alone' mantra but when it comes right down to scrutiny you don't really really really believe in justification by faith alone you just like the sound of it or something. You don't really really really believe in 'scripture alone' either do you?

Based on what?

 

[kyredneck]

Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment | Monergism

Who said we are adhering to a creed? Rather, we use the creeds to explain Scripture. That does not go against Sola Scriptura. It is the exposition of Scripture.

You mean like a Catholic and Catholic Catechism, right? Presbyterian creeds are to a Reformed believer as Catholic Catechism is to a Catholic, right?

@Reformed has a history of objecting to 'interpreting scripture independent of the church', all the while espousing 'Sola Scriptura'. Somewhere along the way some of these 'reformed types' have confused true Biblicism with anti-intellectualism, which grates on me in a large way.

Based on what?

Years of history on this board. I'll ask you:

Do you hold to the Presbyterian Sola "justification by faith alone"?

Start a thread on it if you wish.

 

[Reformed1689]

Years of history on this board.

You can't even provide a simple example?

 

[kyredneck]

You can't even provide a simple example?

You can't even answer a simple question? "Do you hold to the Presbyterian Sola "justification by faith alone"?"

Use the BB search function, keyword(s) faith alone, user kyredneck, you'll find buku examples.

 

[Reformed1689]

You can't even answer a simple question? "Do you hold to the Presbyterian Sola "justification by faith alone"?"

Use the BB search function, keyword(s) faith alone, user kyredneck, you'll find buku examples.

I believe in the BIBLICAL sola of faith alone, yes. But you still dodged the actual question here. I shouldn't have to go searching to prove your claim.

 

[kyredneck]

I believe in the BIBLICAL sola of faith alone

Prove, from the Bible, justification by faith alone.

But you still dodged the actual question here. I shouldn't have to go searching to prove your claim.

My claim:

"I've concluded a long way back that you reformed types parrot the 'faith alone' mantra but when it comes right down to scrutiny you don't really really really believe in justification by faith alone you just like the sound of it or something."

You'll just have to take my word for it I guess.

 

[Reformed1689]

You'll just have to take my word for it I guess.

No, I don't think so. In other words, you have nothing.

Prove, from the Bible, justification by faith alone.

Start a thread.

 

[kyredneck]

Start a thread.

That's what I thought. Parrot the mantra but put no actual research into it.

 

[Jerome]

Example from position paper of Reformed Baptist microdenomination ARBCA which 'holds to' the LBC (London Baptist Confession 1689):

ARBCA Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America

They declare that the LBC faithfully summarizes what Scripture teaches, and go from there:

"It is always understood that Scripture must be the final authority over the conscience on this issue. However, the member churches of ARBCA have already confessed that the LBC is a faithful summary of what Scripture teaches....This is why this position paper deals more with the exposition and application of the LBC to this issue rather than a lengthy exegesis of Scripture. "

 

[Reformed1689]

That's what I thought. Parrot the mantra but put no actual research into it.

Because I said "Start a thread" you come to this conclusion? Really?

 

[kyredneck]

I believe in the BIBLICAL sola of faith alone

...and FYI, "justification by faith alone" is ANTI-Biblical.

 

[kyredneck]

Because I said "Start a thread" you come to this conclusion? Really?

Yes. You've evidently put ZILCH research into the validity of "justification by faith alone". That is a logical conclusion.

[add]

Do the BB search. You'll get plenty of research on it.