There are many adjectives I want to use for this, but I'll restrain myself and just say this is... unusual.
I understand his point that the Reformed interpretation of Scripture is set, and different from Lutherans, baptists, etc. And that interpretation can't be a wax nose to fit any crazy idea. But he essentially makes tradition infallible, which he later denies. He allows for no doctrinal development at all. Are the confessions all we need to say, doctrinally? No. Sometimes we need to take exception, clarify, or expand, depending on who we are talking to, and why.