Neo-Calvinists and Neo-Confessionalists

If there's a category called 'neo-Calvinist,' there's also a category called 'neo-Confessionalists.' The latter refer to themselves as Old Schoolers and decry "biblicism" and the idea that exegetical theology determines what we should confess, rather than doing exegetical theology through the lens of the Confession. The latter is said to be the only possible position since no one can do exegesis from a confessionless stance (except the original framers, one assumes). While it is fine to work within a set of commitments borne from exegetical spadework, there must also be a commitment to the standard, and this commitment trumps the former.

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.