While the confessional view rightly upholds the doctrines of the authority, inspiration, and providential preservation of Scripture, a troubling trend has emerged among some who profess adherence to this view. Certain individuals, who claim fidelity to the Westminster or Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith, elevate scholarship and academic credentials as superior to the work of the Holy Ghost amongst believers. In doing so, they align themselves in practice with the very academic guilds they critique in modern textual criticism. Such individuals, despite their confessional commitments, are no better than the Enlightenment-driven critics they oppose, for they betray the same foundational error: prioritizing human intellect over the Spirit’s work in the church.
1. Confessional Hypocrisy: Exalting Scholarship Above the Spirit’s Witness
The confessions affirm that the authority of Scripture depends not on human validation but on its nature as the Word of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1.4) states:
“The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof.”
Yet, some within confessional circles betray this principle by exalting their academic credentials or specialized training as superior to the work of the Holy Ghost amongst believers. Such men inadvertently adopt the posture of the academic guilds of modern textual criticism, who subordinate the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the church to the methodologies and philosophies of the academy. This hypocrisy undermines the very confessional principles they claim to uphold.
2. The Academic Guild’s Rejection of the Confessional View
The academic guild already dismisses the confessional view because its position affirms that Scripture is the ultimate epistemic authority, not the methodologies or conclusions of scholars. Confessional Christianity asserts that Scripture is self-authenticating, inspired by God, and preserved through His providence in the church. This is an intolerable claim to those whose epistemology is grounded in Enlightenment rationalism, where human reason and empirical methodologies reign supreme.
Modern textual critics reject the confessional view precisely because it challenges the presuppositions of the academy, which refuses to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit works through the church to preserve the Scriptures. By seeking the approval of this guild, some confessional scholars compromise the very foundation of their faith, demonstrating in practice the same error as their critics.
3. Confessional Scholars Must Avoid the Same Sin
Confessional scholars must be wary of falling into the same sin as the academic guild: exalting human methodologies over the Spirit’s witness in the church. It is a grave error to claim adherence to the confessions while living as though academic approval were the final arbiter of truth. By doing so, they not only betray their confessional commitments but also undermine the sufficiency of God’s providence and the Spirit’s testimony in preserving His Word.
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1.8) declares:
“The Old Testament in Hebrew… and the New Testament in Greek… being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”
This doctrine leaves no room for the notion that Scripture’s authenticity or authority depends on the academic elite. Yet some who profess the confessional view behave as if Scripture requires validation from the academy, thus mirroring the same Enlightenment arrogance they criticize.
4. A Call to Repentance for Confessional Scholars
Confessional scholars must examine themselves. Are they truly submitting to the authority of Scripture as God’s providentially preserved Word, or are they seeking the approval of the academic guild? Are they trusting in the Spirit’s work through the church, or are they relying on their credentials and methodologies? Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, and His words apply to those who elevate their scholarship over spiritual fidelity:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith” (Matthew 23:23).
The same warning must be heeded by confessional scholars who prioritize their academic reputation over their submission to God’s Word and Spirit.
5. The Danger of Scholarly Idolatry
Those who elevate academic credentials above spiritual discernment fall into the same trap as modern textual critics. The idolatry of human intellect, whether in the guise of Enlightenment rationalism or confessional scholarship, reflects a lack of faith in the sufficiency of God’s providence. This error is not merely an intellectual failing; it is a spiritual crisis that undermines the authority of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit.
6. Conclusion: Return to Spiritual Fidelity
Confessional scholars must repent of any tendency to elevate their credentials or methodologies as superior to the work of the Holy Ghost amongst believers. The authority and authenticity of Scripture are grounded in God’s providence, not human expertise. The church, not the academy, is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and the Spirit, not the scholar, is the ultimate guide into all truth.
Let this be a reminder to all who profess the confessional view: scholarship is a gift to serve the church, not a weapon to lord over it. The wisdom of man will pass away, but the Word of the Lord endures forever (1 Peter 1:25).
“Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts” (Zechariah 4:6).
Soli Deo Gloria.
