Objections to Confessional Bibliology – 5

Confessional Authority vs. Scriptural Authority:
Are We Elevating Tradition over Revelation?

1. Introduction

Throughout church history, Christians have wrestled with the question of how human traditions—creeds, confessions, or denominational standards—relate to Scripture. At the heart of the Protestant Reformation was the cry of sola Scriptura, meaning Scripture alone holds final authority for faith and practice. Yet many Protestant traditions developed confessional documents, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession of 1689, which articulate an official understanding of biblical doctrine.

Today, a movement known as confessional bibliology holds that these historic confessions implicitly endorse a specific textual form of Scripture—namely, the Textus Receptus (TR) for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament—as providentially preserved. Some critics raise a pointed question: “Does elevating a specific text-form to confessional status risk placing more weight on tradition (the confession) than on the actual biblical data? Are we at risk of conflating tradition with revelation?”

In this article, we will:

1. Clarify what confessional bibliology means by “confessional authority.”
2. Examine the notion of scriptural authority in Protestantism (particularly sola Scriptura).
3. Discuss whether asserting one textual form as “preserved” effectively puts the confession above the Bible.
4. Weigh potential pitfalls of conflating tradition and revelation.
5. Consider responses from confessional bibliologists.
6. Suggest ways in which a proper understanding of confessional authority might preserve sola Scriptura.

By the end, you should have a clearer understanding of this delicate balance and why some believers worry that confessional bibliology, however well-intentioned, may inadvertently blur the lines between the Word of God and the human documents that interpret and defend it.

2. Defining Key Concepts

1. Sola Scriptura: A foundational Protestant principle meaning “Scripture alone” is the ultimate authority on matters of faith and doctrine. Other authorities (church tradition, confessions, councils) may be helpful or highly respected, but they remain subordinate to Scripture.

2. Confessional Authority: The idea that official creeds or confessions—like the Westminster Confession of Faith—hold real though derived authority in the life of a church. They summarize biblical doctrine, guide teaching, and help maintain doctrinal unity. Confessional bibliology takes this one step further by asserting these confessions point to a particular text of Scripture as the standard.

3. Textus Receptus (TR): The printed Greek New Testament editions from the 16th and 17th centuries that formed the basis of the Protestant Reformation’s vernacular translations, including the King James Version. Confessional bibliologists often claim this text-form was preserved by God in line with confessional affirmations about Scripture’s purity.

4. Masoretic Text (MT): The Hebrew textual tradition maintained by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes (spanning roughly the 6th to 10th centuries AD). Confessional bibliologists generally identify the MT as the divinely preserved Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

5. Revelation vs. Tradition: “Revelation” refers to God’s self-disclosure (including the original biblical manuscripts). “Tradition” includes the accumulated interpretive and doctrinal heritage of the Church. Protestantism typically insists that revelation outranks tradition, though tradition provides valuable historical and theological insights.

With these definitions in hand, let’s examine how these concepts interplay within confessional bibliology, especially regarding the question of textual preservation.

3. A Brief Historical Context:

From Sola Scriptura to Confessional Standards

3.1. The Reformation and Sola Scriptura

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses in 1517, he challenged the authority of the medieval Catholic Church, arguing that Scripture should have primacy over ecclesiastical pronouncements or papal decrees. Out of this ferment arose the principle of sola Scriptura—Scripture as the final arbiter of Christian truth.

Over time, however, the need for doctrinal clarity and unity led the Reformers and their successors to write confessions—like the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran), the Belgic Confession (Reformed), the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian), and the Second London Baptist Confession (Baptist). These documents carefully outlined core beliefs and helped differentiate one tradition from another.

3.2. Confessional Statements about Scripture

Most Reformed confessions contain a strong statement affirming the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture (in the “original tongues”), along with the assurance that God would preserve His Word through history. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), for example, states that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek were “immediately inspired by God” and “kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8).

At the time, the texts used by Protestant scholars in the 16th and 17th centuries were primarily the Masoretic Hebrew Bible and what later became known as the Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament. As a result, confessional bibliologists interpret references to “the Scripture in its original languages” as specifically pointing to the Masoretic and TR textual forms used by the Reformers.

4. Defining the Concern:

“Are We Placing Tradition Above Scripture?”

4.1. The Core Issue

Question: “If confessional bibliology insists that a particular text-form is the only legitimate Bible—based largely on confessional documents from the 17th century—do we risk making the confession the final authority instead of Scripture itself?”

From the standpoint of critics, it might look like the confessions are not just summarizing biblical teaching, but actually dictating which manuscript readings are legitimate—even if older or newly discovered manuscripts might provide compelling evidence for a different reading. Thus, the worry is that tradition (the confession and the Reformation textual consensus) may overshadow objective analysis of biblical data (the full array of manuscripts we now possess).

4.2. Alleged Conflation of Tradition and Revelation

Conflation occurs if we treat the confessional stance as irrevisibly equating to God’s revealed truth. For instance, if a biblical scholar suggests that a certain verse might be better rendered based on earlier or more widespread manuscript evidence, some confessional bibliologists might respond, “Our confession says Scripture was preserved in the TR; therefore, your claim is invalid.”

In such a scenario, critics argue that the confession is effectively controlling the biblical text rather than the biblical text controlling the confession. Sola Scriptura, however, should mean the Bible stands above the confession—if the biblical data convincingly demonstrates an alternative reading, we should at least consider the possibility that the confession’s assumption of a certain text-form needs re-evaluation.

5. Why Confessional Bibliology Emphasizes Tradition

From within confessional bibliology, the perspective is more nuanced than a mere “tradition over Scripture” approach. Several justifications are typically offered:

1. Providential Preservation
   Confessional bibliologists strongly believe that God superintended the process of textual transmission so that the Church would recognize the correct text in every age. In the post-Reformation era, that recognized text was the TR and the Masoretic Text. Thus, the confessions’ endorsements of the “Scripture in its original languages” is read as implicitly endorsing those textual forms.

2. Historical Consensus
   The Reformation-era Church coalesced around these specific texts—witness the production of translations (e.g., the King James Version) that shaped Protestant faith for centuries. Confessional bibliologists argue that such consensus is a testament to divine guidance, not merely “tradition.” They see subsequent claims (e.g., that newly discovered Alexandrian manuscripts might be superior) as undermining or questioning that providential consensus.

3. The Role of Confessions as a Safeguard
   Confessions are not above Scripture, but serve as guardrails to keep interpretation consistent with biblical orthodoxy. In confessional bibliology, they also guard against textual novelty by reminding believers that the Church has historically affirmed a particular text. This does not necessarily put tradition “over” Scripture but uses tradition to interpret and apply Scripture faithfully, including decisions about textual authenticity.

4. Theological Method vs. Empirical Method
   Many confessional bibliologists believe that a purely historical-critical approach can become a “scientific rationalism” that overlooks theological truths like divine preservation. Therefore, the confession functions as a theological lens to interpret textual data, ensuring that new findings do not unseat the Church’s settled, providentially recognized text.

6. Potential Pitfalls and Critiques

Despite these justifications, observers note certain pitfalls that can arise if confessional authority is applied rigidly:

1. Overriding Evidence

   • If strong manuscript evidence contradicts a reading in the TR, but a confessional statement is interpreted to lock believers into that reading, it may appear that the confession is “trumping” Scripture. This fosters the impression that tradition is immovable, while the actual data of Scripture is negotiable or ignored.

2. Historical Myopia

   • Some critics suggest that confessional bibliology overly focuses on the 16th–17th century Reformation moment as the decisive period of textual recognition, potentially minimizing earlier centuries of manuscript transmission or ignoring later discoveries. Are we inadvertently elevating the Reformation era to a near-prophetic status in all textual matters?

3. Equating a Particular Confession with Universal Tradition

   • While many Reformed and Baptist confessions share similar language on scriptural preservation, the Christian Church globally includes traditions like Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and other Protestant bodies that do not necessarily share a dogmatic commitment to the TR or the same confessions. Critics wonder if confessional bibliology conflates a narrower Protestant tradition with the universal Church.

4. Unwitting Confessionalism over Biblical Principle

   • There’s a risk that devotion to the confessions—even if well-intentioned—can become a form of “paper pope.” Some critics draw parallels between modern confessional bibliology and the Roman Catholic argument that Church tradition holds equal weight with Scripture. Confessional bibliologists deny this, but the perception remains in some circles.

7. Responses from Confessional Bibliologists

Confessional bibliologists offer various replies to the critique that “they are placing tradition above Scripture”:

1. Scripture Alone Is Primary, But…
   They maintain that Scripture is indeed final authority—but argue that the historically recognized Scripture (TR/MT) is that Word. In other words, if we must choose between manuscripts favored by “modern textual criticism” and the text recognized by the confessions, they believe the confessions are testifying to the legitimate text of Scripture. Hence, they see no real tension—Scripture is central, and the confessions simply reflect that.

2. Confession as Reflection, Not Creation
   Confessional bibliologists stress that the confessions do not create new doctrines or new texts; rather, they reflect what the Reformers and the broader Church (in their view) already recognized as the authentic text. Thus, tradition is not overshadowing revelation; tradition is the Church’s historically consistent witness to revelation.

3. Historical Evidence of Widespread Usage
   They point to centuries of church usage—particularly in the Greek-speaking East (the Byzantine tradition)—to claim that the TR (or its immediate predecessors) was effectively the ecclesiastical standard. The confessions merely codify this long usage, providing a theological rationale that resonates with the Church’s lived experience.

4. Avoiding “Chasing” Modern Scholarship
   Finally, they argue that endorsing an ever-shifting “critical text” cedes too much ground to scholarly trends, which can shift with each new manuscript discovery or methodological approach. For them, the confessions anchor believers in a stable textual heritage. That anchor is not placed “above” Scripture; it is seen as Scripture’s historically faithful guardian.

8. Nuanced Understandings of Tradition vs. Revelation

Even among confessional Christians, not everyone is comfortable with an absolute identification of “the text recognized by the Reformation” and “the original autographs.” Some theologians adopt a more moderate approach, suggesting:

• The confessions indeed affirm that Scripture has been preserved.
• The confessions do not explicitly name the Textus Receptus as the exclusive text-form, but they do affirm that God has kept His Word pure in all ages.
• We can be open to textual research and evidence if it genuinely elucidates the original text, provided we respect the confessional guardrails (i.e., we do not adopt radical, unorthodox textual theories that undermine the substance of Scripture or major doctrines).

This approach still values confessional heritage highly but distinguishes between the confessions’ theological claims (that God preserves Scripture) and their potential historical assumptions (that the Reformation era’s printed text is that exact final form). Proponents of this view argue that if new evidence strongly indicated a certain reading was authentic, we could integrate that reading without abandoning the confessional principle that Scripture has indeed been divinely safeguarded.

9. The Principle of Semper Reformanda

A famous motto of the Reformation is “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda”—“the reformed church, always reforming.” This phrase implies that while the foundational principles of the Reformation should remain, the Church must be open to continual refinement and deeper understanding of Scripture.

• Confessional bibliology sees the confessions themselves as part of that reformed heritage, contending that their identification (implicit or explicit) of the TR/MT ensures fidelity to the text.
• Critics counter that “always reforming” includes the possibility that the Church might refine its understanding of which textual readings are original, based on new evidence or better scholarship.

Hence, the question becomes: Does “always reforming” apply to textual matters as well, or is the Reformation-era text beyond revisitation? There is no single consensus; different confessional communities answer differently based on how tightly they tie the text to the confessional statements.

10. Balancing Tradition and Revelation

To address the question “Are we at risk of conflating tradition with revelation?” in a thoughtful way, believers might consider the following guidelines:

1. Acknowledge the Authority Hierarchy:

   • Scripture: Supreme and infallible authority, God’s very revelation.
   • Confessions: Authoritative, but derivative and reformable documents that interpret Scripture within a historical context.

2. Understand What Confessions Are (and Are Not):

   • Confessions summarize biblical doctrine and can highlight textual assumptions (e.g., referencing the Hebrew and Greek texts used at that time).
   • However, they are not themselves new revelations. They are subordinate to the biblical witness—thus, if the biblical witness clearly (based on robust evidence) points to a different reading, confessions might be subject to re-examination.

3. Examine Scriptural Precedents:

   • Scripture does not come with a confessional label that says “this is the TR or the Masoretic Text.” Instead, the principle of divine preservation is gleaned from verses indicating God will preserve His Word (e.g., Psalm 12:6–7; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18). Confessional bibliology interprets these passages in a specific historical way. Others interpret them more broadly, suggesting no single text family is exclusively correct.

4. Preserve a Humble Posture:

   • The Reformation confessions, while extremely valuable, were shaped by the manuscripts and resources available in the 16th–17th centuries. A humble approach might recognize that this knowledge was neither exhaustive nor infallible. That does not invalidate the confessions but invites careful discernment when new data emerges.

5. Guarding Against Traditionalism:

   • Traditionalism can happen when devotion to a historical statement becomes an end in itself, overshadowing fresh engagement with Scripture. By contrast, genuine confessionalism seeks to reflect what Scripture teaches, using the confessions as a faithful guide, not an unassailable master.

11. Conclusion

So, “Is it possible that elevating a specific text-form to confessional status places more weight on a historical confession than on the biblical data itself?” It can happen if one interprets the confession in such a way that any textual evidence outside the confessional text is automatically dismissed—even if that evidence is robust. In such cases, critics argue that tradition becomes the controlling factor, rather than Scripture.

However, confessional bibliologists often contend that their stance is not tradition over Scripture, but rather tradition in service to Scripture—insisting that the Reformation-era consensus (the TR and Masoretic Text) is indeed the divinely preserved Scripture to which the confessions testify. In their view, there is no conflict; what the confessions affirm is precisely what Scripture is.

The distinction boils down to whether one believes the confessions are describing a historically anchored textual reality (the TR/MT) that should not be revised in light of subsequent manuscript discoveries, or whether the church has room to refine textual judgments while still preserving the confessional principle that God has kept His Word pure.

For Protestants committed to sola Scriptura and confessional fidelity, the key is to ensure that the confessions remain subordinate to the Word itself. Confessions can guide believers away from speculative theories and preserve orthodoxy, but they should never entirely override compelling biblical evidence. Each generation must maintain a reverent and humble tension between gratitude for confessional heritage and the ongoing pursuit of scriptural faithfulness—recognizing that while tradition is invaluable, God’s revelation in Scripture is the ultimate authority.

12. Recommended Resources

1. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and The London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689): Foundational confessional documents on which much of confessional bibliology relies.
2. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended: An influential work articulating a confessional viewpoint, arguing for the TR based on theological premises.
3. Theodore P. Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text: Defends the idea that the historic confessions implicitly sanction a particular text-form (TR/MT).
4. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (for a modern textual criticism perspective): Helps clarify the broader manuscript evidence outside the Reformation tradition.
5. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (eds.), Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation: While not specifically about textual criticism, it addresses how confessional traditions can integrate scholarly study while honoring church heritage.

By engaging these resources, readers can explore the fine line between honoring confessional standards and upholding Scripture as the supreme revelation of God. In the end, the debate is less about downplaying the authority of confessions and more about clarifying where ultimate authority lies: in the Word of God itself, faithfully preserved and treasured by the Church through history.

Chris.Thomas

See Full Bio