Well, I am all for a church that lays out clearly what it believes. The old "we are a bible-believing church" is more sanctimony than information to anyone seeking to covenant with the church. For that matter, the "Just Me and My Bible" attitude has no warrant from Scripture. We interpret Scripture in community, a community of like-minded saints. 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.
Such Just Me and My Bible folks 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.
When persons 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.
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 (statements of faith, cofessions). 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 Timothy 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."
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.
Churches and persons who cannot clearly articulate a statement of faith, are usually pregnant with all manner of unwritten dogma that must be discovered by much questioning or missteps. It is the latter that usually sends a prospective church member running, when they inadvertently trip over some unwritten rule of faith within that church.
Which is why a confessional church is often the wiser choice, one that points to one of the historic confessions as a marker of the boundaries of what that church believes. Nevertheless, there are churches that have comprehensive statements of faith, something all should have readily available.
It is impossible not to be confessional. Everyone is confessional, but whether it’s written and whether it’s biblical is another matter. And everyone is a theologian, even the people who say theology is bad. It’s always better when we’re clear on our theology, and for that nothing beats writing it down on paper. Writing does not guarantee infallibility, of course, but it does make it easier to determine whether the doctrine we’re confessing aligns with Scripture.
The point of a confession of faith isn’t to put something above Scripture. The point of a confession is to ensure the public teaching of the church is as close to the teaching of Scripture as possible. When we don’t write down our theology and confess it publicly as a church, it leads not to healthy freedom but to unhealthy restriction.
Confessions have historically been used in three ways. First, they’ve defined and defended doctrine and thereby protected the church from false teaching. Second, they’ve been used for catechesis: training and equipping believers with a well-rounded overview of Bible teaching on the main points of religion. Third, they’ve been used for doxology and worship. Many churches affirm the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed in public worship. Though the main uses of a confession are the first and second, all three together show us how confessions are meant to be employed.
On the matter of what Calvin did or did not teach, folks need to be reminded that those commonly called Calvinists are not Calvin sycophants, but rather Scripture followers. That Calvin's views are found to be among the more accurate of Scripture is but the good providence of God. No church should need to appeal to Calvin in a statement of faith, for his views are more than adequately summarized in the historic confessions, including even the LBCF, despite its anti-paedo baptistic stance.
AMR
- my commentary on that thread stands, as well, regarding that particular text, which is what that thread is about, for those wanting to engage all the subjects within its 'context'. That's what 'discussion' is.
