some thoughts on interpreting the Confession

by | Mar 11, 2011 | Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, Historical Theology

  1. Like the Bible, the Confession is often self-interpreting, latter statements shedding interpretive light on former statements and former statements upon latter.
  2. Unlike the Bible, however, the self-interpreting phenomena of the Confession are not infallible.
  3. Like the Bible, the Confession is progressive in its formulation, latter statements assuming the former and building upon them.
  4. Like the Bible, inner-biblical (inner-confessional) exegesis/intertexuality is present in the Confession and often the key to its proper interpretation.
  5. Like the Bible, the Confession possesses authorial intent.
  6. Unlike the Bible, there is no divine author.
  7. Like the Bible, seeking to understand human authorial intent requires understanding background information, such as symbolic sources, historical-theological context, the theological nomenclature of the era, and the writings of the editor(s) of the Confession.

Follow Us In Social Media

Subscribe via Email

Sign up to get notified of new CBTS Blog posts.

Man of God phone
Is the covenant of works biblical? | Tom Hicks

Is the covenant of works biblical? | Tom Hicks

The Reformed confessions of faith all affirm that God made a “covenant of works” with Adam in the Garden of Eden. For example, The Second London Baptist Confession 20.1 explicitly refers to this covenant: “The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made...

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This