Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The "Just Me and My Bible" attitude has no warrant from Scripture.
Scripture principally teaches what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man -- FAITH and LIFE. The Confession makes explicit what a church believes that FAITH and LIFE to be. Those who object to a Confession are generally objecting to the FAITH and LIFE which the Confession sets forth as the teaching of Scripture. They are denying that FAITH and LIFE to be true of Scripture. What they put in the place of that FAITH and LIFE is their own interpretation of what Scripture teaches relative to FAITH and LIFE, and this functions as their own Confession. They are not doing away with the Confessional process, but simply placing their own Confession in competition with the one they are refusing.
Furthermore, when they reject the Confessional process, and pretend that they are being more "Scriptural" by not having a Confession, they effectively make themselves something more than an interpreter of Scripture. They have gone beyond the right of private judgement and have claimed the authority of Scripture itself for their beliefs. Because they have set themselves up above that subordinate and mediate place which the Confession occupies, they assume a supreme and immediate relationship with Scripture which makes their teaching the voice of the Holy Spirit Himself.
Finally, when individuals claim to be "Scriptural" in a sense which disallows the possibility of a confession subordinate to Scripture, they (1) deny to the church the authority to declare its mind as to what the Scriptures teach, and (2) take away from individuals the right to prove all things, to hold fast that which is good, and to abstain from all appearance of evil. So, by denying the proper function of Confessions to explicitly and subordinately interpret what Scripture teaches, the individual or the "church" sets their own implicit authority in a place of supremacy over others.
The Confessional approach is taught in Scripture in plain terms. 2 Corinthians 4:2 states, "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God." The Confession manifests the truth in a way that others can plainly judge it for themselves; it does not hide the truth under a blanket of implicit authority whereby the truth can be turned into whatever suits the individual. Furthermore, Scripture testifies to the function of the ministry to teach the truth in a form of words which can be learned, taught to others, and entrusted to others to teach it. 2 Timothy 1:13 states, "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." 2:2 continues, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Sola Scriptura is not soli scriptura, implying that we don't need any help to understand the Bible whatsoever. If that were true, then we couldn't even use a translation of the text, because that would be using someone else's help.
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
Under the influence of Anabaptist radicalism, which swept across and transformed American evangelicalism in the 19th century led it away from the Reformation understanding of Sola Scriptura to a different doctrine: biblicism or the attempt to understand Scripture by one’s self and by itself, i.e., in isolation from the history of the church and in isolation from the communion of the saints. In biblicism the interpreter, not Scripture, becomes sovereign. Historically biblicists, although they boast about their devotion to Scripture, are actually devoted to the supremacy of reason. As someone, somewhere said, “All heretics quote Scripture.” It is one thing to quote Scripture but it is another to read it well and to interpret it properly.
Like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a just me, God, and the Bible type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Hence, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.
For those studied in church history, it would be clear that the Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were very willing to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular misunderstandings, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. As has often been said, the Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.
AMR
Scripture principally teaches what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man -- FAITH and LIFE. The Confession makes explicit what a church believes that FAITH and LIFE to be. Those who object to a Confession are generally objecting to the FAITH and LIFE which the Confession sets forth as the teaching of Scripture. They are denying that FAITH and LIFE to be true of Scripture. What they put in the place of that FAITH and LIFE is their own interpretation of what Scripture teaches relative to FAITH and LIFE, and this functions as their own Confession. They are not doing away with the Confessional process, but simply placing their own Confession in competition with the one they are refusing.
Furthermore, when they reject the Confessional process, and pretend that they are being more "Scriptural" by not having a Confession, they effectively make themselves something more than an interpreter of Scripture. They have gone beyond the right of private judgement and have claimed the authority of Scripture itself for their beliefs. Because they have set themselves up above that subordinate and mediate place which the Confession occupies, they assume a supreme and immediate relationship with Scripture which makes their teaching the voice of the Holy Spirit Himself.
Finally, when individuals claim to be "Scriptural" in a sense which disallows the possibility of a confession subordinate to Scripture, they (1) deny to the church the authority to declare its mind as to what the Scriptures teach, and (2) take away from individuals the right to prove all things, to hold fast that which is good, and to abstain from all appearance of evil. So, by denying the proper function of Confessions to explicitly and subordinately interpret what Scripture teaches, the individual or the "church" sets their own implicit authority in a place of supremacy over others.
The Confessional approach is taught in Scripture in plain terms. 2 Corinthians 4:2 states, "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God." The Confession manifests the truth in a way that others can plainly judge it for themselves; it does not hide the truth under a blanket of implicit authority whereby the truth can be turned into whatever suits the individual. Furthermore, Scripture testifies to the function of the ministry to teach the truth in a form of words which can be learned, taught to others, and entrusted to others to teach it. 2 Timothy 1:13 states, "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." 2:2 continues, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Sola Scriptura is not soli scriptura, implying that we don't need any help to understand the Bible whatsoever. If that were true, then we couldn't even use a translation of the text, because that would be using someone else's help.
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
Under the influence of Anabaptist radicalism, which swept across and transformed American evangelicalism in the 19th century led it away from the Reformation understanding of Sola Scriptura to a different doctrine: biblicism or the attempt to understand Scripture by one’s self and by itself, i.e., in isolation from the history of the church and in isolation from the communion of the saints. In biblicism the interpreter, not Scripture, becomes sovereign. Historically biblicists, although they boast about their devotion to Scripture, are actually devoted to the supremacy of reason. As someone, somewhere said, “All heretics quote Scripture.” It is one thing to quote Scripture but it is another to read it well and to interpret it properly.
Like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a just me, God, and the Bible type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Hence, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.
For those studied in church history, it would be clear that the Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were very willing to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular misunderstandings, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. As has often been said, the Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.
AMR