Rome, Confessionalists, and Biblicists all have some kind of Pope
|June 7, 2012||Posted by Rick Hogaboam under Debates, Theology|
Peter Leithart, in response to Jason Stellman’s resignation from the PCA and assumed departure to Roman Catholicism (link), makes some wonderful observations, insights, and appeals in his post: Peter J. Leithart » Blog Archive » Who’s got the gateway drug?. I appreciate the admitted tension Leithart functions within as what I would call a “confessional biblicist” – a sample of which you will find in the following quote:
Confessionalists, after all, place a great deal of emphasis on the tradition of Reformed theology, embodied especially in Reformed confessions. Throughout the debates of the past few years, I have presented mainly biblical arguments for my positions, and kept historical concerns subordinate. My opponents have typically been much more interested in testing my views by the Westminster Confession. The touchstone of their theology is a piece of the Reformed tradition as much as, and in some cases more than, Scripture. Confessionalists claim that the Confession provides standard exegesis of Scripture, to which Reformed theologians have to submit. Confessional Reformed theology thus has a natural affinity for Rome that biblicists like me don’t share. Confessionalists want the Confession to be a paper Pope. It’s not surprising that some find the paper Pope inadequate, and go searching for a live one. (If, as some will charge, Scripture is a paper Pope, it’s one whose ring I gladly kiss.)
© 2012, Rick Hogaboam. All rights reserved.