“Confessionalism [is] a commitment to defining, adhering to, and defending clearly stated truths that are sincerely believed.” While there is a certain sense in which all Christianity is necessarily confessional in a de facto sort of way, what I am arguing for is a sturdy kind of confessionalism: one that conscientiously and unashamedly and very carefully declares what is believed and what is to be taught…Christianity is inherently confessional. To be a Christian is to confess. Every Christian, every church, has a creed or a confession. ‘Credo’ simply means ‘I believe.’ Christians are believers; hence all Christians have a creed or a confession.”
Tom Ascol, in “Recovering a Robust Confessionalism” (Ascol granted all Christians and churches, though, might not have a “well-thought-out” creed or confession.)
2 comments:
I clicked the link but did not watch the video, mostly due to time constraints. I think it is wise to keep in mind that authors of confessions even when regenerate were far from infallible. I find it very disconcerting that a confession written by mere mortals ever settles any doctrinal or practical dispute. The Scriptures should be our only rule of faith and practice. Some in the "Retrieval" movement (if it's OK to cal it that), are retrieving the confessions and trying to conform to them and holding them to be the standard (a la "the Westminster Standards" which are the confession and the shorter and longer catechism). I think an awareness and study of the confessions can be profitable, but neither that study nor the confessions themselves are necessary for life and godliness. Sometimes I see them appealed to as a rule. I don't think anything is the standard but the Bible.
E. T. Chapman
Good thoughts, Brother. Made me think I probably should have given a disclaimer that the video is the source of the quote, but that I don’t agree with everything Tom Ascol says about confessions. I do generally agree with the excerpt. I think this is a tricky area, especially in our day. On the one hand, we live in a day where so-called churches are abandoning firm belief in anything, and they will not clearly say what they believe. So, it is refreshing to see those who will state what they believe and stand up for what they believe. Retrieval is good, but pendulum swings also can take one too far in the other direction. And I think that retrieval folks like Tom Ascol tend to go too far in the other direction. (I think that “retrieval movement” is a pretty apt description for this; this movement, re confessions, tends to garner more steam among the Reformed-type Baptists.) And I think there is also just the human tendency that after a confession has been in place for a long time, for it to be allowed to have more authority to the scriptures themselves. This is not stated, it just becomes the practical effect.
I do think we need to be stout enough to say “I believe” (or in the case of a church “we believe”). I believe that we should not fear to lay it out so others will know what we believe. However, when that becomes the crutch we lean on (if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it, so to speak), then we have actually abandoned “sola scriptura.” And I think that is one of the things behind the subtle discussions of “sola scriptura,” “sola scriptura,” and “nuda scriptura” that I write about here:
https://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2024/08/sola-scriptura-solo-scriptura-nuda.html
Thanks again. God bless.
Post a Comment