Solascripture

[Solo]

What's the matter, your own words aren't good enough? If someone has to resort to cutting and pasting other people's LONG work, they obviously cannot defend what they believe.

I am familiar with James White and how he operates... I have no intent on reading his work. If you'd like, summarize what you think is most pertinent, and I will comment.

Regards

I did not post this for you. You are a false teacher. I am posting this for those who are intent on knowing the truth of the Word of God.

 

[Guest]

frances or biblecatholic - at first I thought it just coincidence or that you two were picking up the same arguements from each other.... however, I must ask:

Are you taught within the Roman Church on how to 'debunk' Sola Scriptura??

 

[Solo]

frances or biblecatholic - at first I thought it just coincidence or that you two were picking up the same arguements from each other.... however, I must ask:

Are you taught within the Roman Church on how to 'debunk' Sola Scriptura??

Yes they are.

See Here for the RC directives on Sola Scriptura.

and

Specifically Here

And there is more as you dig into there entire setup

Here

 

[francisdesales]

Yes they are.

See Here for the RC directives on Sola Scriptura.

I got to tell you that we don't receive "directives" on debunking Sola Scriptura. I have never heard any sort of homily from the ambo that had anything to do with that subject, or even on "apologetics", fo rthat matter. Sure, there will be private speakers who may organize a talk on such subjects, but that is not from "Rome". Whatever information or knowledge on this subject, Mike, comes from our own personal readings or books or websites that are established or created by private Catholics or Catholic apologetic organizations, not directives sent to us by cardinals (ha ha - birds/bishops...).

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I did not post this for you. You are a false teacher. I am posting this for those who are intent on knowing the truth of the Word of God.

Aw, shucks... And I thought you were trying to defend Sola Scriptura against my removing the veil of its falseness for the world to see.

 

[Guest]

fran - is it possible that you do not understand Sola Scriptura, and what you have been 'told' about it - is false?

How about you describe to me, what you believe sola scriptura is.

 

[francisdesales]

fran - is it possible that you do not understand Sola Scriptura, and what you have been 'told' about it - is false?

How about you describe to me, what you believe sola scriptura is.

Sola Scriptura is the idea that Christian doctrine is based ONLY on the bible. While writings of Church Fathers might be instructive and useful, the Bible is the only thing authoritative to Christians who believe it.

Basically, it refutes the decision that Christ made to give men the authority to bind and loosen within the Christian community.

If Sola Scriptura is true, where is that authoritative definition in the bible? I have yet to be given a verse that states unequivocaly that the Bible is the sole, authoritative source for Christians (or Jews, for that matter). Isn't it self-refuting?

Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

Fran. What does binding and loosing mean? And who has this authority? Can you show me where scripture says that the Catholic church is the only authority?





May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Guest]

Sola Scriptura is the idea that Christian doctrine is based ONLY on the bible. While writings of Church Fathers might be instructive and useful, the Bible is the only thing authoritative to Christians who believe it.

Basically, it refutes the decision that Christ made to give men the authority to bind and loosen within the Christian community.

If Sola Scriptura is true, where is that authoritative definition in the bible? I have yet to be given a verse that states unequivocaly that the Bible is the sole, authoritative source for Christians (or Jews, for that matter). Isn't it self-refuting?

Regards

You are close - my understanding and belief in Sola Scriptura is that beliefs and teachings should be rooted/grounded in the Bible. That the Bible is God's written Word to humanity. That within the Bible is God's teachings on salvation and how we are to live with one another. It provides descriptions as to God's nature and plan for slavation. The Bible is the inspired Word of God in that that human authors were instructed by the Holy Spirit in what to record perserving the 'flavor' of the individual authors.

God is in charge of perserving His word throughout the generations. He has perserved His word through the written Bible.

Sola Scriptura CANNOT refute those doctrines that are found WITHIN the Scriptures. That would defeat the purpose of Sola Scriptura.

2 Tim 3:16-17 is the classic example of Biblical Support for Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura recognizes and affirms that within the Bible is God's truth. As such, Truth can have but one meaning and one intention. It is through study and guidance of the Holy Spirit that those who are born of the Spirit can read and understand the Scriptures. God's truth cannot contradict itself and must operate in harmony or it is no longer truth.

Any power that man possess is from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, directed by God. To understand the power that we are given, one must turn to the Scriptures. Scriptures, not man, is the standard upon which all doctrine must be measured.

 

[francisdesales]

You are close - my understanding and belief in Sola Scriptura is that beliefs and teachings should be rooted/grounded in the Bible. That the Bible is God's written Word to humanity. That within the Bible is God's teachings on salvation and how we are to live with one another. It provides descriptions as to God's nature and plan for slavation. The Bible is the inspired Word of God in that that human authors were instructed by the Holy Spirit in what to record perserving the 'flavor' of the individual authors.

Sounds good, except for the "Sola" part that you do not mention. Explain what "Sola" means in Sola Scriptura. Is there any other source of authority that a Christian is bound to?

Regards

 

[stranger]

Gentlemen,

Within the broad understanding of Protestantism - from an apologetic point of view sources of authority are: scripture (hence the scripture alone bit) AND the less talked about: reason, experience and tradition.

Exactly where you draw the line between authority and 'influence' has always been at the back of my mind. Now sometimes when I see a discussion about some doctrine - I see reason at work - it is not a rare occurence that I think 'in this instance it is reason not scripture that has been elevated to the higher source of authority.'

Experience is also so 'influential' you will meet believers that will place a higher value on there particular experience than is commonly realised.

Protestants also have their traditions: I have previously asked by way of example: to what degree is the Westminister Confession of faith 'authoritative' for presbyterians?

Yes, scripture alone is the protestant ideal, I simply ask: what happens in practice?

 

[Solo]

You are close - my understanding and belief in Sola Scriptura is that beliefs and teachings should be rooted/grounded in the Bible. That the Bible is God's written Word to humanity. That within the Bible is God's teachings on salvation and how we are to live with one another. It provides descriptions as to God's nature and plan for slavation. The Bible is the inspired Word of God in that that human authors were instructed by the Holy Spirit in what to record perserving the 'flavor' of the individual authors.

Sounds good, except for the "Sola" part that you do not mention. Explain what "Sola" means in Sola Scriptura. Is there any other source of authority that a Christian is bound to?

Regards

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27

 

[GMS]

Protestants also have their traditions: I have previously asked by way of example: to what degree is the Westminister Confession of faith 'authoritative' for presbyterians?

Yes, scripture alone is the protestant ideal, I simply ask: what happens in practice?

This article in part speaks to why we have confessions of faith;



"We have confessions because of the Scriptural precedent of being confessional.

Presbyterians claim Scripture as the primary rule of faith and life, and Scripture quotes confessions from the early communities of faith. The Hebrew Scriptures tell of the covenant people affirming in worship the "shema" "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4 9). The New Testament records the earliest Christian creed: "Jesus is Lord" (Philippians 2:11).

We have confessions because we are a community of believers, not a random collection of individuals.

The Confessions both form and reflect our sense of community by describing our shared story and our common values.

Confessions define what we as a community believe. These statements of faith proactively affirm our beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and about humanity, the church and the world (the context in which God, humanity, and the church interact). They also reactively counter understandings prevalent in the surrounding culture that do not coincide with our faith.

We have confessions because we are fallible human beings, prone to error, and inclined to forget who and whose we are. We need guidance and continual reminders about what we believe.

Confessions develop out of a need to clarify beliefs and to contradict heresies. For the covenant community of Israel, the "shema," the affirmation of one God, stood over against the surrounding culture that offered various gods or idols. For the earliest Christians to say that "Jesus is Lord" was a clear renunciation of the Romans' claim of Caesar's lordship.

The church soon found it necessary to say more than simply "Jesus is Lord." By the fourth and fifth centuries the church had become far removed from the direct disciples of Jesus and any eyewitnesses to the events of the crucifixion, resurrection and Pentecost. The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds emerged in response to concerns about whether or not Jesus Christ could be both divine and human.

The core of the Apostles' Creed reinforces the historical life of Jesus the Christ, underscoring the fact that he was "born of the virgin Mary," that he suffered "under Pontius Pilate" (a historical figure), that he "was crucified, dead, and buried." The Nicene Creed emerged as correction to the heresy of the theologian Arius, who declared Christ unequal to God. It reaffirms the historical Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ and confirms the Trinitarian nature of God.

Three of our confessions (the Scots, Second Helvetic, and Westminster Confessions) and all three of our catechisms (the Heidelberg and the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms) developed out of the conflicts between newly emerging Protestantism and medieval Roman Catholicism. The Scots Confession condemned such medieval church abuses as the selling of indulgences, in which church members could pay sums of money to atone for sins prior to committing them. The Scots Confession also emphasized the faithfulness of God's Word in Scripture.

John Calvin inspired the writing of Second Helvetic Confession, which, like the famous technical precision of Swiss watches and clocks, describes the specifics of church work and administration. The Second Helvetic also outlines our doctrine of salvation, contrasting the Reformed understanding of salvation as God's gift in Jesus Christ with medieval Roman Catholicism's stress on human merit (see specifically 5.053). The Scots, Second Helvetic and Westminster Confessions all strongly assert the centrality of Scripture.

Nearly four centuries passed before the church formed and adopted another confession. Within the past six decades the church has embraced three new confessions: the Declaration of Barmen, Confession of 1967, and A Brief Statement of Faith.

The Declaration of Barmen raised its voice against Hitler's in post-Weimar Republican Germany. It reaffirms the church's profession of the sovereignty of God, the authority of Scripture, and the salvation of Jesus Christ. In those affirmations we hear a resounding denial of Hitler's hostile, Nazi claims of sovereignty, authority and salvation.

The Confession of 1967 frequently repeats the term reconciliation. In response to civil rights struggles, American involvement in Vietnam, and our first view of our planet from outer space, the church expressed a renewed commitment to reconciliation: with God, with each other (within and outside of the church), and with the planet (God's good creation, of which we are stewards).

The Presbyterian Church's reunion of Southern and Northern branches in 1983 prompted yet another 20th-century confession: A Brief Statement of Faith. This newest of confessions, says the Preface, "celebrates our rediscovery that for all our undoubted diversity, we are bound together by a common faith and a common task."

We have confessions because we believe faith has an intellectual component as well as an experiential one.

Christians need instruction in the faith, because faith is not just a matter of the heart and soul; it is also a concern of the mind. "Speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Ephesians 4:15). The Second Helvetic Confession states that "the pastors of the churches act most wisely when they early and carefully catechize the youth, laying the first grounds of faith, and faithfully teaching the rudiments of our religion by expounding the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the doctrine of the sacraments, with other such principles and chief heads of our religion" (5.233) .

The catechisms in our Book of Confessions (the Heidelberg and the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms) were written specifically as teaching tools, putting in question-and-answer form the common elements of faith according to the Reformed tradition. Not only the content but also the very existence of catechisms underscores the importance of teaching believers. Many Presbyterians over age 40 spent hours in childhood memorizing the Shorter Catechism and can still cite at least the first question: "What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever."

Our growth in faith of course ideally extends beyond our youthful learning of the basics and into regular, intensive study of our Scriptures and confessions throughout our lives." Perky Daniel

 

[Solo]

Papal Validation of the Truth

POPE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE

Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that only the Pope has the final authority to interpret the Holy Bible. What does the Bible say?

The following quote is from Paragraph 100 in the Catholic Catechism:

• "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

Yes, that is Paragraph 100 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; I'm not making this up. Now, it is not saying that the Pope is the only one who does research. The Catholic Church has many scholars who study and interpret the texts of the Catholic Cannon in their original languages. It is saying that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and the bishops under him validate the correct view of Scripture. So, if you are a good Catholic, you should have the Catechism close by every time you read the Bible to guard you from forming independent and I dare say, heretical ideas.

The Catechism is a good example of this validation. I don't know the exact history of the production of the Catechism, but following is my best stab at what probably took place. Many scholars searched the traditions and codes of the Catholic tradition. They worked separately and together. They conferenced and they toiled. They inserted certain words and struck others. They boiled down the theological system in a huge and time consuming process. The Pope, the bishops, and many other card-carrying Catholic clergy reviewed the drafts and made suggestions. At last, the final draft was presented to the Pope. He looked it over, made some last minute changes, and then put his stamp upon it. And that's the point; the Pope decides what God actually says in the Scripture for all Catholics.

Let's examine Paragraph 100 word by word to get the full idea of the statement:

• Interpreting: this is the process of explaining. In this statement, it means that the Pope explains the Bible for "the Church."
  
  Word of God: the Catholic Cannon or roughly, the Bible plus some other stuff. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes things as the Word of God that the Protestants and Evangelicals would never. This partly explains why the veneration of Mary has come about (but let's not get off the subject).
  
  Authentically: to me, this is the million dollar word of the statement. It is basically saying, "You can read the Bible for yourself, but you can never know its genuine meaning without consulting the Pope's interpretation." This thinking truly diminishes the importance of the Catholic to read his or her Bible. This thinking is illustrated by a story I heard from a lady in Ireland. She believed on Christ alone through the witness of a missionary church in Dublin, but she was afraid to leave "the Church" and become a member of the Baptist church. Being fearful of joining an unknown group, she went to her priest concerning their practice and beliefs. The priest responded, "Stay away from those Baptists -- they take the Bible seriously." The lady retorted, "Aren't we supposed to take the Bible seriously?"
  
  Entrusted: this means that the Pope has been assigned with the duty of explaining Scripture. We ask, "By who?" The answer is God. Catholic doctrine holds the Pope, as an apostle in the line of Peter, has been given power, apostolic power, to explain what the Bible really means. The Pope's God-given job is to tell us what the Bible means. I say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
  
  Solely: is the final word to focus on. It is saying that the Pope is the only one with the authority or right to decide what truth is. Never has such power belonged to a mortal man. The Pope is entitled to his opinion, but should he be the final word on the Word?

By my tone, you know that I disdain the idea of Papal authority over the Scripture. The concept is wholly against the teaching of the New Testament. A simple place to look at this is an interesting account in the 17th chapter of Acts: "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (vs.10-11). These folks were hearing the preaching of an apostle and his assistant, but they did not just accept their teaching without question. They took the Scriptures they had (the Old Testament), and checked the various prophecies for themselves. Luke, the writer of Acts and the fellow worker of the Apostle Paul, regarded this as "noble" behavior. The Bereans were double-checking the teaching of Paul with the Word of God. In a "noble" fashion, they were deciding what truth was. Therefore, if the Pope claims to be an Apostle, let us check his teachings with the teachings of the Bible. If he is an Apostle, his teaching would match up to the testimony of Scripture.


Finally, let us look at some reasons why all Believers can look into the Scriptures for themselves and discern truth.

1. The message of the Bible is clear and plain. We should not have to worry about any "secret code" which is only available to those in seminaries. Psalm 19:7 says, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." The simple mind can understand, grow wise, and be changed by the clear teaching of Scripture.
   [/*:m:055d6]
2. All Believers are part of an ordained priesthood, equal in status with each other, equal in status before God. No Christian should be considered as having the corner on truth or able to overrule the conscience of another. We are accountable to Christ alone, our High Priest and Shepherd (1 Peter 2:2,3,9; Rev. 5:10).
   [/*:m:055d6]
3. Every Believer in Christ has the Holy Spirit to help in the discernment of what the Bible says. 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 teaches this: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."[/*:m:055d6]

As Spirit-filled priests, we are able to see what God is saying in His wonderful Book. No man should be able to claim sole authority to truth unless that man is Jesus Christ, who is worthy to break open the seven-sealed book at the end of time. The root of this error in Paragraph 100 is that the Pope is regarded as the head representative of Christ on Earth and has been regarded as having the authority of Christ. Let us wholeheartedly deny and condemn this Catholic teaching and read our Bibles in the power of the Holy Spirit.






If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that nothing will not hurt you spiritually. You will also know the greatest heart peace that the greatest God can give to one of His own children.

If you would like to become Born Again, and come to know this wonderful heart peace, turn to our Salvation Page now.

Retrieved from http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/rc105.htm

 

[Guest]

Sounds good, except for the "Sola" part that you do not mention. Explain what "Sola" means in Sola Scriptura. Is there any other source of authority that a Christian is bound to?

Regards

The only source of authority in the Christian life should be God. It is God who has provided for us His written Word. As I have said before, it is His Word that is our benchmark, our standard for knowing God, understanding God and living a godly life that He commands.

Any authority that we have as followers is from God, sustained by God, and effective through God in the form of the Holy Spirit. However, that authority must be held in check - and I would aruge that it is the Scriptures that provide that benchmark.

Yes - I am an ordained pastor - however, that does not give me authority to create doctrine, to speak doctrine that is contrary to the Word of God.

If I were to become my own benchmark, then what oversight, what accountability do I have?

We see it all the time with 'cult leaders' who claim to have their own authoirty outside of Scripture.

As for traditions within the Protestant church - sure we might 'hang the greens' every 4th saturday before Christmas, or we might always have a banquet in February, or traditionally we have always used a silver collection plate, etc etc - but none of those things are 'authoritative'. If we begin to preach tradition - then there is a problem!

 

[francisdesales]

The only source of authority in the Christian life should be God. It is God who has provided for us His written Word. As I have said before, it is His Word that is our benchmark, our standard for knowing God, understanding God and living a godly life that He commands.

I agree that God is our sole source. He has given us Apostolic Tradition and the Bible, which is where we disagree. However, can you deny that the Bible relates for us a historical precedence of leaders in the Church that "make" doctrine?

Consider reading Acts 15, pastor (I say this with new respect, as I know indirectly that it is not easy leading people of a community).

When if you were a Jew newly converted to Christianity in 50 AD. No Scriptures of the NT yet. You hear about the "Council of Jerusalem" as related in Acts 15. The Church's decision to do away with circumcision as a nesessity for becoming part of the People of God. Remember, circumcision was a command given by God, written down in the TORAH, Scriptures accepted by ALL Jews as inspired. EVERY Jew to that time had been circumcised. ALL the apostles. Jesus. ALL the prophets. ALL Jews. And then, this group of men come along and "claim" that they have been given authority to do away with this command from God! And then they say that the Holy Spirit found this pleasing!!!

With that in mind, pastor, what would the "sola scriptura" Jew had said? What DID the Judaizers say about this ruling by the Church? What was THEIR reasoning? As we now know from the NT written AFTER the fact, we know that those apostles had been given authority from Christ HIMSELF with the power to BIND and LOOSEN the Laws of God. These men and their successors, thus, have the power from above to manifest the Will of the Holy Spirit (as Acts 15:28 says).

I would ask that you reflect on this and ask yourself if God gave us ONLY the Scriptures to know His will and His teachings.

Yes - I am an ordained pastor - however, that does not give me authority to create doctrine, to speak doctrine that is contrary to the Word of God.

NO individual has that "power". Even the Pope himself cannot "create" doctrine. The Pope in union with the Bishops merely define and relate what the Church has ALREADY BELIEVED. In every case that you look to where the Church has defined doctrine, you will find theologians, liturgical practices, and the devotions of the common people ALREADY practicing and believing that later defined doctrine in some manner without realizing it. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in His Church. This "sense of the faithful" is detected by the Bishops and they formulate it when faced with challenging opinions.

If I were to become my own benchmark, then what oversight, what accountability do I have? We see it all the time with 'cult leaders' who claim to have their own authoirty outside of Scripture.

I hope you will agree that the Catholic Church doesn't make that claim of its own individual leaders. We believe that God will protect His Church from error and will accurately teach what He has revealed to mankind.

As for traditions within the Protestant church - sure we might 'hang the greens' every 4th saturday before Christmas, or we might always have a banquet in February, or traditionally we have always used a silver collection plate, etc etc - but none of those things are 'authoritative'. If we begin to preach tradition - then there is a problem!

We have similar traditions that are more properly called "disciplines". They are not apostolic traditions. Such things as the rosary or a priest wearing green during ordinary time at the Mass. We have two different levels of tradition. This one is changeable. Apostolic Tradition is not changeable.

Regards

 

[Guest]

First - I do not share that I am an ordained pastor so that you would call me, pastor. Pastor is an office that God has pleased Himself to call me into.

I am not denying that at one time prior to the canon being made complete that there was oral tradition and apostolic teaching. However, the canon is now complete - God has perserved His wisdom, His teachings, His commands, Himself from the living Word (Jesus Christ) to the written Word (the Scriptures).

From newadvent.org:

The Pope
(Ecclesiastical Latin papa from Greek papas, a variant of pappas father, in classical Latin pappas -- Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633).

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church. The Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in the Vatican Council in the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of that Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on St. Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff, the pope's jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals. This last point has been sufficiently discussed in the article INFALLIBILITY, and will be only incidentally touched on here.

When one has the ability to define, one has the ability to create.

It goes one to say that 'theological definition" is:

"The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrâ, that is to say, when in the exercise of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians he, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, defines that a doctrine on faith or morals is to be held by the whole Church, by the assistance of God promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, has that infallibility with which it was the will of Our Divine Redeemer that His Church should be furnished in defining a doctrine on faith or morals."

 

[Guest]

You say that you believe God will protect the Roman Catholic denomination from error - but yet, history shows that the Roman Catholic church has taught and supported heresy and error.

Is God not doing His job?

 

[francisdesales]

First - I do not share that I am an ordained pastor so that you would call me, pastor. Pastor is an office that God has pleased Himself to call me into.

It is unbecoming to chide someone for showing respect.

I am not denying that at one time prior to the canon being made complete that there was oral tradition and apostolic teaching. However, the canon is now complete - God has perserved His wisdom, His teachings, His commands, Himself from the living Word (Jesus Christ) to the written Word (the Scriptures).

How do you know the canon is complete? WHO made that decision? IF the Church is not infallible, HOW can the canon be complete? Your denial of the infallibility of the Church opens the door to ANYONE making the claim that God has revealed to them MORE Scriptures...

When one has the ability to define, one has the ability to create.

Has the Church, then, created the bible? OR did the Church merely define what the Church community already accepted, making it "official" by an infallible prouncement?

Regards

 

[stranger]

This article in part speaks to why we have confessions of faith;

"We have confessions because of the Scriptural precedent of being confessional.

Presbyterians claim Scripture as the primary rule of faith and life, and Scripture quotes confessions from the early communities of faith. The Hebrew Scriptures tell of the covenant people affirming in worship the "shema" "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4 9). The New Testament records the earliest Christian creed: "Jesus is Lord" (Philippians 2:11).

We have confessions because we are a community of believers, not a random collection of individuals.

The Confessions both form and reflect our sense of community by describing our shared story and our common values.

Confessions define what we as a community believe. . .

We have confessions because we are fallible human beings, prone to error, and inclined to forget who and whose we are. We need guidance and continual reminders about what we believe.

Confessions develop out of a need to clarify beliefs and to contradict heresies. . .

The church soon found it necessary to say more . . .

The core of the Apostles' Creed reinforces . . .

Three of our confessions (the Scots, Second Helvetic, and Westminster Confessions) and all three of our catechisms (the Heidelberg and the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms) developed out of the conflicts . . .

Nearly four centuries passed before the church formed and adopted another confession. . .

The Declaration of Barmen raised its voice against . . .

The Confession of 1967 frequently repeats the term reconciliation. . . .

The Presbyterian Church's reunion of Southern and Northern branches in 1983 prompted yet another 20th-century confession: . . .

We have confessions because we believe faith has an intellectual component as well as an experiential one.

Christians need instruction in the faith, because faith is not just a matter of the heart and soul; it is also a concern of the mind. . . .
.
The catechisms in our Book of Confessions (the Heidelberg and the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms) were written specifically as teaching tools. . .

Our growth in faith of course ideally extends beyond our youthful learning of the basics and into regular, intensive study of our Scriptures and confessions throughout our lives." Perky Daniel

Hi GMS,

Thanks for your response. Yes, the why we have confessions of faith is clarified but your post. But I am still seeking an answer for the question:

By way of example: to what degree is the Westminister Confession of faith 'authoritative' for presbyterians?

The operative word in this question is authoritative.