What is neo-Confessionalism, you ask? I find it to be the view of many calling themselves "Confessionalists" simpliciter. Perhaps you can get an intuitive feel for neo-Confessionalism by an example. I once asked an Old Schooler for an exegetical argument for his position. He said the exegesis was the Confession. He said he didn't need to exegete the passage, it had already been done. Now, it's a settled matter. Mind you, I didn't believe the Confession said what he thought it said, much less provided an "exegetical argument" for it. But I asked, what if the Bible contradicts the Confession. The response: It can't, for the Confession confesses what the Bible says. The Confession is to be believed not in so far as it is biblical, but because it is. But, I responded, doesn't the Confession admit it can err? Doesn't the Confession say that Scripture is the adjudicating standard? What does this mean if the Bible must be read and exegeted on the assumption that what it says, the Confession says, God says? Neo-Calvinists seem to have the view of the Confession that is the Confession's view of itself. This is often called bibliolatry or biblicism.
It is one of those ironies that neo-Calvinism is Old-School-Confessionalism and Old School Calvinism is neo-Confessionalism.
Unhelpful.
ReplyDeleteWhat is? The post?
ReplyDeleteHelpful.
ReplyDeletethe post assists me in reflecting on doctrine and then discussing doctrinal issues with the various interesting brothers on the net and in the local church. thanks.
Not helpful in my instance.
ReplyDeleteI think he means criticizing neo-Confessionalism isn't helpful? Just stick to criticizing neo-Calvinists.
ReplyDeleteAh, I see. I will henceforth send ll of my posts to Gene to make sure they are helpful to him. My next one, how to make homemade Chicago deep dish pizza. Gene, will that be helpful?
ReplyDeleteHow would you classify the devil himself? He argues for quia subscription in his book and exegetes John 4, for example.
ReplyDelete