In our day it is especially important to be confessional.  When we looked at the dismal state of theology in the American Church, we saw significant and disheartening errors in the average Christian’s views of Scripture, God, man and sin, salvation, the Church, and current issues like extramarital sex, abortion, gender identity, and homosexuality.  Basically all of these errors are clearly addressed in the confessions, so adherents to the confessions can easily avoid them.

Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
-1 Timothy 6:2-5, ESV
In our series on Reformed theology, we have covered the Reformed view of salvation through the five solas and the five points of Calvinism.  But salvation is only one part of theology, so Reformed theology must go beyond the five solas and Calvinistic soteriology (salvation) by subscribing to a theologically-holistic Reformed confession.  Therefore a Reformed church must not only be Calvinistic but confessional. This post will look at the impIortance of confessions and the relation between the need to be always reforming with the need to follow a historic confession in order to avoid straying from what Scripture clearly teaches.
The Importance of Confessions
From the earliest days of the Church, defining what we believe has been extremely important.  Throughout the epistles, we see evidence of various heresies that dogged the Church, requiring divinely-inspired reiteration of what Scripture teaches.  One extra-persistent early heresy was Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ.  In large part to refute this, the early Church adopted the various creeds: the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Chalcedon Definition.  When we consider this context, it is easy to see why these creeds so strongly affirm Christ’s divinity.  Each generation faces new challenges to the faith, forcing the Church to strongly state what Scripture clearly teaches about those specific topics.  An example in our day is the challenge to biblical manhood and womanhood from feminism, homosexuality, and transgenderism.  To address this, a pair of ecumenical councils quite similar to Nicaea produced the Danvers and Nashville Statements that we addressed here.  Since such statements address particular heresies, they are somewhat limited in their scope.  But by the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church had strayed so far from the teachings of Scripture into a wide variety of heresies that a complete and robust definition of what Scripture teaches on all of faith and life was required.  As the Reformation spread, different groups began to form with varying interpretations regarding secondary doctrines, so those groups needed to define their beliefs.  This as the origin of the various confessions of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries which ultimately became the defining documents of various Reformed denominations.
We have need of the same comprehensive definition of beliefs. Many Christians do not venture beyond soteriology in defining their doctrines, thus leaving themselves open to various errors.  They chant “no creed but Christ”, and therefore stumble into all manner of heresy.  Lacking a Scriptural foundation, they ultimately worship a god so different than the God of the Bible that their worship is idolatry.  The confessions like the ancient creeds prevent such errors by keeping us grounded in the faith, providing vital guardrails against new and strange teachings.  It is true that only Scripture is inerrant and timeless while the confessions are the product of men.  However, this does not prevent them from being useful to us.  Error comes not only from the denial of what Scripture clearly teaches but from new and creative interpretations of Scripture. There is nothing new under the sun, so any new error derived from a creative interpretation is likely just a restatement of an error that has appeared at some point in Church history.  Therefore, most of these errors are addressed in the Reformed confessions.  But when we ignore Church history, we exalt ourselves over our spiritual ancestors as if we are far wiser and more enlightened than they were, only to fall prey to the folly that they have already so wisely and eloquently addressed.  The errors of Rome at the time of the Reformation were so pernicious and comprehensive that God was especially gracious to gift the Church at the time with many wise scholars well versed in Scripture to create the confessions. We would be foolish to ignore them.
The Reformed Confessions
Last time, I mentioned the importance of John Calvin documenting all of the doctrines that characterized the Reformation—not just soteriology—in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which was essentially the first Reformed systematic theology.  Others built upon this by codifying what Scripture teaches on all topics of faith and life.  As the different Reformed groups began to distinguish themselves from each other, it became vital to distill these beliefs down into a single, Scripture-based document that all of the ministers within the group could agree on.  These were their confessions, which laid out their beliefs on Scripture, God, man, sin, the church and sacraments, civil authorities, the home, and eschatology (the end times).  They are often accompanied by catechisms, which are sets of questions and answers used to teach what the confession contains.  Together, these form a robust theology for faith and life.  The confessions were so important to this period that it has been called “confessionalization”.[1]  They became even more important during the rise of liberalism and the Enlightenment of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, at which point many churches abandoned the robust theology of the confessions in favor of conversion-focus and individual experience.[2]  That mentality has persisted to this day such that many churches reject the notion of confessions altogether, dismissing them as antiquated human works of little value today.  But the historic confessions provide a necessary bulwark against the liberalism of mainline denominations and the individualistic emotionalism of seeker-sensitive American evangelicalism just as they have historically defended the Church against Roman Catholicism and other heresies.  Therefore, to be truly Reformed is to be confessional.
To be confessional requires understanding the Reformed confessions enough to subscribe to one of them.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Grover E. Gunn |
Monday, November 15, 2021
Paul is also here arguing for an inclusive salvation, a salvation that includes all believers, both Jews and Gentiles. I think that that argument is furthered by the Apostle Paul’s reference to the land promise given to Abraham as a promise that ultimately refers not just to the land of Canaan but to the whole earth.

When God made the covenant of circumcision with Abraham in Genesis 17, God made this promise to Abraham:
“And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you” (Gen 17:7).
This didn’t mean that God was promising that every descendant of Abraham would end up going to heaven. We know that from reading redemptive history, from considering descendants of Abraham such as Ishmael and Esau, descendants of Abraham who were cast out of the covenant community for their disobedience. What this promise meant was that God was establishing a covenant community consisting of Abraham and His descendants, and that this covenant community would be a special and unique place of divine blessings. God gave the pagan nations up to vile passions and over to a debased mind, but God would be the God of Abraham and His descendants. The covenant community would be a special place of spiritual privilege just as surely as the gospel offer is sincere and genuine. This is where the word is preached, where prayers are prayed and where worship is offered to God in spirit and truth. This is also the place where many come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
That was such a wonderful promise that God made to Abraham, the promise the God would be Abraham’s God and also the God of Abraham’s descendants. We believe that this promise remains true today under the new covenant. The Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved, and they answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” That is another way of expressing the promise that God made to Abraham, the promise that God would be Abraham’s God and the God of Abraham’s descendants.
Yet there are obviously differences between the way God administered His covenant with Abraham and the way God administers the new covenant with us today. The covenant that God made with Abraham involved the circumcision of the male children born into the covenant community. We don’t use circumcision as a religious initiation sacrament today. We use baptism with water, and we don’t limit its application to boys. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and Abraham’s descendants. We as Christians in American don’t claim any property rights in the Middle East.
Many argue that if that is the case, then we have no right to claim the promise that God will be the God of believers and their children. If we don’t circumcise our children and if we don’t claim ownership of any real estate in Canaan, then the promise, “I will be your God and the God of your descendants,” does not apply to us either. They say that it was a package deal, and that if any of it was set aside, then all of it was set aside. They say that our children who have not yet professed faith are not in any way a part of God’s covenant community.
How do we answer that argument? What is our relationship to the covenants that we find in the Old Testament? I would argue that our relationship with the Old Testament is not an all or nothing proposition. I would argue that the choice is not between total change and no change. I would argue that you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water, and I would also argue that you shouldn’t think that you have to keep the bath water in order to keep the baby. These are not the only choices. There are other options, other possibilities.
Let me share with you my understanding. There was a crucial event in history that marked the transition of God’s covenant people from covenant childhood to covenant adulthood. That crucial event was the saving work of Jesus Christ in history. And the saving work of Jesus Christ in history culminated in His pouring out His Holy Spirit upon His people in new covenant fullness on the Pentecost of Acts chapter two. Before that event, the covenants had a form and administration that were appropriate for the people of God in their covenant childhood. After that event, the covenants have a form and administration that are appropriate for the people of God in their covenant adulthood. There was a transition from one to the other recorded for us in the book of Acts. We find in the New Testament the guidance that we need to understand the differences in the childhood administration and the adulthood administration of God’s covenants. Christians today are directly under an administration of the covenant of grace called the new covenant, and the new covenant is a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant in a form suited for the covenant adulthood of this age of the Holy Spirit.
Here is what the Apostle Paul had to say in Romans 4:13:
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
What I believe that the Apostle Paul is doing here is taking a promise that God gave to Abraham in terms of old covenant childhood and then applying it in the Apostle Paul’s time in terms of new covenant maturity. In the book of Genesis, every time that God promised to give something to Abraham or to Abraham’s seed, that which was promised was the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 24:7). The same is true of every such promise that God gave to Isaac and to Isaac’s seed (Genesis 26:3-4) and every such promise that God gave to Jacob and to Jacob’s seed (Genesis 28:4,13; 35:12; 48:4). These promises always referred to the Old Testament land promise. Also, in Romans 4:13, the Apostle Paul was referring to a promise that was given not through law but through the righteousness of faith. This would point especially to Abraham’s encounter with God regarding which we are told that Abraham believed in the LORD, and the LORD accounted it to Abraham for righteousness. And look at what God promised Abraham in that very encounter found in Genesis chapter 15:
“I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it” (v. 7)
“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates …” (v. 18)
Now the promise that God gave to Abraham and to Abraham’s seed through the righteousness of Abraham’s faith was a promise to inherit the land of Canaan. And the Apostle Paul referred to this promise as a promise to inherit the world. Now why did the Apostle Paul change the language here? I believe that he did so because he was interpreting the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant in terms of the new covenant and the age of spiritual maturity.
The land promise had an application consistent with the age of the old covenant, the age of covenant childhood. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and their seed. About four centuries after Abraham, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob conquered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. Later King David subdued all the enemies within the land, and King Solomon had peace on every side around him. Thus, King Solomon was able to say,
 “Blessed be the LORD, who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised. There has not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised through His servant Moses” (1 King 8:56).
In this way, God fulfilled His land promise in its old covenant application and form.
Yet God’s promises, fulfilled in their original form, are often harbingers of even greater things to come. They are like seeds that germinate and break through the shell of their original form into fulfillments that surpass original expectations. There were some indications of greater fulfillments in the land promise as it was originally given to Abraham. God repeatedly told Abraham that both he and his seed would be a blessing to all the families of the earth and to all the nations of the earth. Yet I think that the Apostle Paul had additional reasons for believing that the promise of the land of Canaan ultimately referred to a promise of the entire world as the inheritance of God’s covenant people.
I think that the Apostle Paul could see such reasons by looking back before the time of Abraham to the time of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. God blessed Adam and Eve and said to them,
“Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).
God gave Adam and Eve dominion over all the earth, and yet God initially entrusted them with only a small but choice piece of real estate, a garden within the land of Eden. God told Adam to guard that garden, to protect it from any invasion of evil, and to cultivate that garden, to make it even more fruitful and productive. I believe that if Adam had kept covenant with God through obedience, that he would have been able to expand the garden and to fill it with his offspring until the garden reached to the very ends of the earth. Yet Adam did not guard the garden when Satan invaded it through his agent the serpent. Adam fell into sin, became an outlaw along with Satan and forfeited his dominion over the earth.
Let’s now go forward to the time of Noah. The earth had become dominated by perversion and violence, and those who still worshiped God had dwindled down to the family of Noah. In judgment, God cleansed the earth with a universal flood. Out of all humanity, only Noah and his family were delivered from that judgment through the safety of the ark, the ark being a picture of Jesus Christ as Savior. In the flood, we have the imagery of a new creation. As originally created, the earth was a chaotic watery abyss that was hostile to life. It was without form, without the order necessary to sustain life, and therefore it was void of life. During the flood, the earth again became without form and void, and no life dependent upon breathe could survive except for those safe in the ark. Then God began His work of a new creation. In the original creation, God began His work by sending His Spirit to hover over the watery abyss like a bird. In the new creation after the flood in the days of Noah, God sent His wind to pass over the earth, and the waters resided. The Hebrew word for “wind” is the same as  Hebrew word for “Spirit.” In the original creation, the Spirit had hovered over the watery abyss like a bird. In the new creation in the days of Noah, Noah sent out a dove to confirm that life had returned to the earth. The symbolism of the dove was confirmed when the Spirit of God descended upon Jesus like a dove at the time of His baptism with water.
After this world had been cleansed by a watery judgment and then restored as a place that sustained life, there was another fall into sin in the rebellion at the tower of Babel. God then used the judgment of confused languages to create the nations. God allowed the nations to go their own ways and gave them over to their sinful rebellion. God, however, also chose one man to be the father of a nation that would be God’s special treasure, a holy nation of priests. That man was Abraham. God promised Abraham and Abraham’s descendants a small but choice piece of real estate that was located at the crossroads of three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe. God promised Abraham and his seed a place that could become a spiritual oasis in the midst of a spiritually hostile world. It was in a sense and to a degree a new garden of Eden. And since God promised that Abraham and his seed would be a blessing to all the nations, we shouldn’t be surprised that this land promise would one day expand to encompass the whole world.
By looking back in time before Abraham, we see the parallel of the land of promise given to Abraham with the garden of Eden given to Adam. Then by looking forward in time after Abraham, we find confirmation that the land promised to Abraham was indeed a token and pledge of something bigger and better. The land promise was a promise that would eventually expand to encompass the whole earth. Listen to a prophecy made about the then coming Messiah, the Messiah who would be the ultimate Seed of Abraham. And as you listen to these words, remember that the River, a reference to the Euphrates River, was the northern boundary of the land promised to Abraham.
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8).
Also consider the prophecy found in Zechariah 9:10, the verse immediately following the prophecy that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem one day riding on a donkey, a prophecy fulfilled by the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem at the beginning of His passion week.
His dominion shall be “from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” (Zechaiah 9:10).
The Messiah will have dominion from sea to sea, perhaps a reference to the promised land between the Mediterranean Sea to the west and the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee to the east. That is not surprising, but the Messiah will also have dominion from the Euphrates River, the northern boundary of the land promised to Abraham, to the very ends of the earth. The land promise under the Messiah expands to include the whole earth.
We see this fulfilled when the resurrected Jesus receives the nations as His inheritance and is given all authority in heaven and on earth. We see this fulfilled when Jesus commands His disciples to disciple the nations. We further see this fulfilled in the age to come when the people of God as the seed of Abraham inherit for eternity the new heavens and the new earth.
“For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the LORD, “So shall your descendants and your name remain” Isaiah 66:22).
What this all points to is what the Apostle Paul took for granted. Paul simply stated without any argumentation that the promise which God made to Abraham or to Abraham’s seed was a promise that he would be the heir of the world. Paul is here arguing for a salvation that is both exclusive and inclusive. It is exclusive in that it excludes all boasting. Verse 13 continues that argument in that the land promise was given through the righteousness of faith and not through law. One of the times when God gave the land promise to Abraham was His appearance to Abraham in Genesis chapter 15 and the verse that Paul repeatedly quotes:
And [Abraham] believed in the LORD, and [the LORD] accounted it to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6).
Here was see what Paul called the righteousness of faith and a justification that excludes all boasting. It was a gift of grace, grace being God’s undeserved favor. Abraham believed in a promise of God whose ultimate fulfillment was dependent upon Jesus and His saving work. God then reckoned that faith to Abraham as Abraham’s righteousness because Jesus was the ultimate object of that faith. God reckoned or accounted the righteousness of Jesus as Abraham’s legal record. That is a salvation that excludes all boasting.
Paul is also here arguing for an inclusive salvation, a salvation that includes all believers, both Jews and Gentiles. I think that that argument is furthered by the Apostle Paul’s reference to the land promise given to Abraham as a promise that ultimately refers not just to the land of Canaan but to the whole earth.
You will hear many people today claiming that the land promise given to Abraham does not today belong to Christians in any sense but instead finds its fulfillment in the modern nation of Israel founded in 1948. I would encourage you to listen instead to what the Apostle Paul has to say about the land promise in Romans 4. Also, if the land promise belongs to us today in a new covenant form, then so does the promise that God made to Abraham that He would be the God of both Abraham and His descendants. Let us take full advantage of that promise by worshipping with our children with the people of God on the Lord’s Day, by praying for our children and by living out a life of faith before our children. Remember what the Apostle Paul said about Timothy in his last letter. He said that he was filled with joy when he remembered the genuine faith that was in Timothy and which first dwelt in Timothy’s grandmother and mother (2 Timothy 1:4-5). May God grant us such joy regarding our own children as well.
Dr. Grover Gunn is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is pastor of MacDonald PCA in Collins, MS.

We must acknowledge that men throughout our culture and churches are in need of much soul care.  The answer is not therapy that in addition to being atheistic in origin is contrary to the nature of men.  Instead, the answer is Scripture, which was given by God through the pens of men to speak to the hearts of men.  Scripture is uniquely suited to help all people address their problems, including helping men approach problems in a masculine way.  Therefore, when men cannot find sufficient help in male discipleship relationships, men need biblical counseling.

Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees. Say to those who have an anxious heart, “Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you.”
-Isaiah 35:3-4, ESV
Recently, I discussed how to approach depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety biblically.  These along with anger, trauma, substance abuse, and a myriad of other issues are commonly seen in biblical counseling.  I discussed the need for biblical counseling in general here, but many of these issues disproportionately affect men, and men often avoid counseling.  So while all Christians can benefit from biblical counseling, this post focuses on men.  We will see that the Bible (and therefore biblical counseling) is uniquely suited to help men.
The Problem
Are men really affected disproportionately?  Recent statistics show that more women than men are affected by them, anxiety and depression, though men have higher rates of substance abuse.  However, one fact in particular suggests that the problem may be much worse than reported.  Of nearly 100,000 suicides in 2021 and 2022, almost 80,000 were men.[1]  This shows that women seek help much more often than men do, thus making it appear that less men struggle with these issues.  Many professionals have observed this, calling it a men’s mental health crisis.  In this, they are not wrong.  Our society gives men ample reasons to be depressed and anxious—enough to turn to substances and suicide.  It demonizes men and glorifies women in the name of “equality”, making every woman out to be a queen and ever man a monster such that one can unironically ask questions like “are men worthy of compassion?” and “do we even need men anymore?”.  It presumes guilt whenever a man is accused by a woman, urging everyone to “believe all women” regardless of evidence.  It encourages women to set impossible expectations for men then leave or commit adultery when “their needs are not being met”, destroying their husbands’ lives through no-fault divorce.  A family court system stacked in women’s favor then makes marriage an all-risk-no-reward proposition for men—at least from a secular perspective.  This is not to disparage the institution of marriage itself.  After all, I recently commented on the beauty of biblical marriage.  However, no-fault divorce has eliminated any societal accountability for husband and wife to uphold their marriage vows.  Without that, men have everything to lose and nothing to gain from divorce and therefore marriage.  Finally, this perverted society works tirelessly from childhood to squeeze males into a feminine mold, demonizing their masculine distinctives as “toxic” such that they become effeminate, assume they are defective, or rebel and become abusive.  All of this men’s sense of removes purpose, which is a very important anecdote to depression.  So yes, there is a men’s mental health crisis, which should surprise no one.
If it is so bad, why aren’t men getting help?  Scholars point to stigma regarding men and mental health, a general hesitation for men to talk about their emotions, and even “toxic masculinity”.[2]  There is like some truth in that (except for the toxic masculinity part), but I propose a simpler explanation.  Perhaps men who suffer from depression and anxiety refrain from seeking treatment because of their perception of the treatment itself.  Unlike medical treatment—which men are notorious for avoiding as well—mental health treatment often involves therapy, which is the last thing most men want to do.  The prospect of lying on a couch talking about your childhood with a stranger and then talking endlessly about feelings is somewhat less preferrable than undergoing a root canal.  Furthermore, it is obvious enough to be cliché that men are solution-oriented.  Men want to troubleshoot the problem, identify the root cause, and solve it.  But due to the complexity of the issues in question, psychology and psychiatry often cannot offer such solutions.  Therefore, therapy—at least in men’s minds—is reduced to “talking it out”, which seems futile. It all seems very feminine, and in a culture that is working hard to strip men of every last vestige of masculinity, can we really fault men for not wanting to go to therapy that could threaten to emasculate them even further?[3] I have no idea whether that image bears any resemblance to actual therapy, but this is a case in which perception is more important than reality.  The perception alone is enough to scare most men away from therapy.  If only help for men could be found coming from wise and masculine men.  If only manly men from “the good old days” wrote a book to men that addressed these problems in a way that acknowledges their masculinity.
The Bible’s Masculinity
Such a book exists: the Bible.  This may come as a surprise since the broader American church has largely feminized Christianity.  The worship songs, sermons, and ministries of many churches cater so much to women that men can feel very out-of-place, leading them to believe that the Bible is not for them.  Every word of Scripture is infinitely profitable for all Christians, whether male or female, but to counter the error of feminization in our churches, we need to stress the masculinity of Scripture.  First, every word of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, who like the Father and Son is repeatedly portrayed in Scripture as male.  He inspired men to then write those words down—not people in general, but men in particular.  Moses, David, Solomon, Israelite historians, and the prophets were all men, as were the apostles, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude.  And of course the Gospels record the words of Jesus, the perfect man.  Even passages spoken by women, such as the songs of Miriam and Deborah, the prayer of Hannah, and the Magnificat, were recorded by men.  The only passage of Scripture attributed to a woman is Proverbs 31, which was an oracle from the mother of King Lemuel.  But like the others, it was relayed by a man to male writers, so it too is the words of a man recorded by men.
Much of Scripture was written to, for, and about men.  Job and his friends were all men.  Many of the psalms were written as battle songs for the Israelite army.  Much of Proverbs is written from father to son.  Many of Christ’s teachings were directed at specific men, and several of the epistles were written to specific men.  It should be unsurprising then that the Bible is written in a way that appeals to masculine strength.  Even in the songs of Miriam, Deborah, and Mary, one cannot help but notice the themes of conquest and strength.  From Abraham to Hezekiah, the narrative of Scripture is full of the exploits of the men in war.  Abraham defeated five kings to rescue Lot (Genesis 14).  Joshua led the Israelites to defeat the Amalekites during the exodus (Exodus 17).  Caleb claimed Hebron mainly because he would have to fight giants there (Joshua 14:6-15).  Then there’s most of Judges followed by Saul and his armor bearer defeating an entire Philistine garrison by themselves (1 Samuel 14), David’s entire life and Mighty Men, and many others.
Read More
Related Posts: