# Do you view your respective confession as functionally infallible?



## tellville

I was wondering how many here view their respective confession as _functionally_ infallible? I realize no one here would believe that their confession is _actually_ infallible, but it seems to me most people treat the confession as such anyway.

I was just taking a nap and this question popped in my head. No issue really caused it, just plain serendipitous curiosity.

Multiple choices are allowed. Also, stating your reasons why if you're a "no" would be interesting.


----------



## Josiah

I dont suppose that i could still be a ninja if i voted yes


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No.

I think it's probably a misnomer to assume that quoting a Confession and having confidence in its Biblical summary is equivalent to viewing it as infallible. Let me give an illustration.

Assume two men read John 3:16 and John 6.

The first man says: "See! God loves the world. The Scriptures don't lie. This means that every single person has an opportunity to believe the Gospel. Dave Hunt used this Scripture convincingly to demonstrate that James White is all wet!"

The second man replies: "I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit,2 out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;3 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,4 taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;5 renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,6 and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:7 yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.8"

The question for you is this:

Whose interpretation was infallible?


----------



## Matthias

tellville said:


> I was wondering how many here view their respective confession as _functionally_ infallible? I realize no one here would believe that their confession is _actually_ infallible, but it seems to me most people treat the confession as such anyway.
> 
> I was just taking a nap and this question popped in my head. No issue really caused it, just plain serendipitous curiosity.
> 
> Multiple choices are allowed. Also, stating your reasons why if you're a "no" would be interesting.



I have been over the 1689 confession, and over it, and over it and over it. I have not found a point that I personally do not agree with. It is not "inspired" so of course there is that possibility, but I find it to be written beautifully and scripturally.


----------



## MW

Infallible means cannot err. Any human writing can err. A better word would be inerrant, which means it does not err. Some clarification would need to be made as to what does not err -- the propositions in and of themselves, or the way in which the propositions have been stated. I don't think there is anyone who could subscribe a confession believing the propositions have been stated perfectly. But as to the propositions themselves, it is a contradiction to suggest a person can confess to believe something to be true whilst believing it errs.


----------



## RamistThomist

I voted unsure but quiet. That's not accurate, though. I think I might even disagree at parts, in fact I probably do. But it is not something I want to cause trouble about.


----------



## Calvibaptist

I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.



The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.
Click to expand...


Exactly. So the "No Creed but Christ" crowd proudly disdain those that believe a "man-made Confession" but then have inerrant confidence in their own opinions about what the Scriptures teach!


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Exactly. So the "No Creed but Christ" crowd proudly disdain those that believe a "man-made Confession" but then have inerrant confidence in their own opinions about what the Scriptures teach!



Well noted, Rich. We often hear that human documents cannot be propositionally inerrant. The problem being, that such a proposition claims to be without error. So we end up with the contradiction of a man claiming to make an inerrant proposition that men cannot make inerrant propositions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Good to see you posting again Reverend Mat. I look for your posts. You must be studying. I have not seen you around much.

Concerning the part about *the *Pope being *the* Anti-Christ. I have some questions here. Which Pope? And what about other Anti-christs. Isn't Islam Anti-Christ also? I do believe they are anti-Christs but to single one out is a bit presumptuous.


----------



## Vytautas

I disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 of Providence Section 3which says God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. I don't think God works without means in his ordinary providence, because that would be unordinary providence. God ordinary uses means to accomplish his ends.


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.
Click to expand...


Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvibaptist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the point.

Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?

A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.


----------



## Davidius

armourbearer said:


> Infallible means cannot err. Any human writing can err. A better word would be inerrant, which means it does not err. Some clarification would need to be made as to what does not err -- the propositions in and of themselves, or the way in which the propositions have been stated. I don't think there is anyone who could subscribe a confession believing the propositions have been stated perfectly. But as to the propositions themselves, it is a contradiction to suggest a person can confess to believe something to be true whilst believing it errs.





SemperFideles said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point.
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?
> 
> A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.
Click to expand...




Good point. It is possible for a human/uninspired document to be inerrant, but never can one be infallible.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point.
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?
> 
> A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.
Click to expand...


If, by inerrant, you just mean "true," then I have no problem with it. But the word "inerrant" is dripping with theological meaning that is usually reserved for the Scripture alone. I believe the Confession is true. The problem with using the word "inerrant" is that, for most people, that puts it on the same level as Scripture. You and everyone else on this board are not saying that, but most people who know a little about Christianity would interpret it that way.

BTW, inerrant mean "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error! Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.


----------



## bookslover

One of the options should be "No, because terms such as 'infallible' and/or 'inerrant' should be reserved for the Bible alone." One honors the Scriptures when he automatically assumes that all confessions of faith and catechisms are, in principle, fallible and errant. The Westminster divines certainly took this view (Confession 1.10).


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Good to see you posting again Reverend Mat. I look for your posts. You must be studying. I have not seen you around much.
> 
> Concerning the part about *the *Pope being *the* Anti-Christ. I have some questions here. Which Pope? And what about other Anti-christs. Isn't Islam Anti-Christ also? I do believe they are anti-Christs but to single one out is a bit presumptuous.



Sorry I've not been around much. Physical infirmity has meant I haven't been able to use the computer as much as normal. Which has been good, because I've caught up on some heavy duty reading.

This is a little off topic, but the Holy Spirit speaks of many antichrists as well as the antichrist. I think the Confession is quite right to do so. But as I've had cause to say before, chapter 25 of the Confession is dealing with ecclesiology not eschatology. Propositionally therefore the statement about the antichrist only requires us to affirm (1.) that Christ alone is the head of the church, (2.) that the antichrist falsely assumes that headship, and (3.) the Pope, in falsely assuming that headship, acts as the antichrist. It's worth pointing out that because the confessional statement interprets the apostle's language as referring to a system rather than an individual man, it leaves open the possibility of a future development of the antichristian system of Papal Rome.


----------



## MW

Vytautas said:


> I disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 of Providence Section 3which says God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. I don't think God works without means in his ordinary providence, because that would be unordinary providence. God ordinary uses means to accomplish his ends.



So where is the disagreement? It sounds to me like you have simply clarified the proper meaning of the Confession rather than corrected it.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Good to see you posting again Reverend Mat. I look for your posts. You must be studying. I have not seen you around much.


Matthew!


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> BTW, inerrant mean "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error! Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.



Again, we need to distinguish between the proposition and the way it is stated. According to orthodox reformed thought, the translations of Scripture made by men of the reformed profession have not been foung to err with regard to the sense of Scripture, even though there may be better ways of rendering words and phrases. William Lyford provides the standard position: "in respect of words and manner of speech, a translation may be defective, when it is not erroneous as to the sense" (Instructed Christian, p. 72). The same applies to one's confession of faith.


----------



## DMcFadden

Calvibaptist said:


> BTW, inerrant mean "free from error." Are you willing to say that any man-written document is completely free from error? We don't even believe that the KJV is free from error! Inerrancy only extends to the original autographs of Scripture.



If I score a 100% on a test it will be "inerrant." However, no matter how many 100% I rack up, nobody would ever accuse me of being "infallible."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bookslover said:


> One of the options should be "No, because terms such as 'infallible' and/or 'inerrant' should be reserved for the Bible alone." One honors the Scriptures when he automatically assumes that all confessions of faith and catechisms are, in principle, fallible and errant. The Westminster divines certainly took this view (Confession 1.10).


Thus, on the basis of your own criteria, I can state unequivocally that what you just wrote is not true.


----------



## Bygracealone

armourbearer said:


> Vytautas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 of Providence Section 3which says God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. I don't think God works without means in his ordinary providence, because that would be unordinary providence. God ordinary uses means to accomplish his ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the disagreement? It sounds to me like you have simply clarified the proper meaning of the Confession rather than corrected it.
Click to expand...


Exactly. That's what the confession says.


----------



## Herald

I have a problem with the word infallible in conjunction with any work of man. If you had an option that simply said, "No" I would have selected that one.

Of course I also ask:  before answering questions of this type.


----------



## kvanlaan

And after asking  I would ask this: do we have any Calvinist ninjas on the board in order to dispatch the Arminian spies? If so, where was this option?


----------



## Amazing Grace

I voted no, and I am Vocal about one question in particular in the Heidelberg

Q & A 7

Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature
come from?

A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
Adam and Eve, in Paradise.^1
This fall has so poisoned our nature^2
that we are born sinners—
corrupt from conception on.^3


I do not agree that Eve's name should be in there. It is specifically mentioned by Paul that sin entered through one man, that is Adam.


----------



## JohnOwen007

SemperFideles said:


> [...] The "No Creed but Christ" people [...]



[1] This is a creed because the exact words are not found in Scripture.

[2] Which Christ? The Islamic, Arian, Ebionite, Lutheran, or Reformed ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. So the "No Creed but Christ" crowd proudly disdain those that believe a "man-made Confession" but then have inerrant confidence in their own opinions about what the Scriptures teach!
Click to expand...




While I am not 100% sure about _everything_ in the Westminster Standards, those who want to reject creeds altogether are, in my experience, people who are filled with pride and are totally unteachable.

Indeed, the whole idea of "no creed but Christ" is a contradiction, as "no creed but Christ" is a creed, as they are affirming a belief in something i.e. they are claiming to believe in Christ. If its alright for them to do that, then why can't the rest of Christendom state what they believe concerning Christ, His person and work, His church, His salvation, His relation to the other persons of the God-head, His return, His worship, His kingship over church, family and state, His sacraments etc, etc.

However, from my encounters with this sort of person in the past, their zeal against creeds is nothing more than an assertion of their own infallibility. While they are perfectly entitled to examine the creeds and confessions of the church in the light of Scripture (Acts 17:11) - and suggest improvements where they believe necessary - the whole idea of a creedless Christianity is nothing but an excuse for ultra-individualism and contempt for the authority of those whom Christ has placed over them in the church.

Well, that's my rant over for now.


----------



## JBaldwin

I voted, no, There are some things I am unsure about, but I am quiet about it. That is not entirely true, I would rather say, that as far as I can tell with my study of Scripture so far, I agree with it, but there are a few points about which I would like to study further. 

I would also agree with others who say that there is no confessional that is going to be completely inerrant or infallible. God's Word is the only document we have that can claim those things. I hold to the Westminster Confession because it most closely states what I believe, and it is the confessional that my church holds.


----------



## fredtgreco

Amazing Grace said:


> I voted no, and I am Vocal about one question in particular in the Heidelberg
> 
> Q & A 7
> 
> Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature
> come from?
> 
> A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
> Adam and Eve, in Paradise.^1
> This fall has so poisoned our nature^2
> that we are born sinners—
> corrupt from conception on.^3
> 
> 
> I do not agree that Eve's name should be in there. It is specifically mentioned by Paul that sin entered through one man, that is Adam.



This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 6.3 "_they being the root of all mankind._" It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first *parents *unto *their *posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of *Adam's *first sin" (emphases added).


----------



## fredtgreco

bygracealone said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vytautas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 5 of Providence Section 3which says God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. I don't think God works without means in his ordinary providence, because that would be unordinary providence. God ordinary uses means to accomplish his ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the disagreement? It sounds to me like you have simply clarified the proper meaning of the Confession rather than corrected it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's what the confession says.
Click to expand...


More thorny is reconciling WCF 5.2 "Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, *all things* come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth *them *to fall out *according to the nature of second causes*, either necessarily, freely, or contingently" (the only possible antecedent for "them" must be "all things." (this implies that all things fall out according to the nature of second causes) with: 

WCF 5.3: "God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, *yet is free to work without, above, and against them*, at His pleasure".

It is very likely that the error contained therein is grammatical, yet sufficient to show that the Confession is not without error (which is the definition of inerrant).

Having said that, I have complete confidence in the Confession as a faithful and true summary of Biblical truth.


----------



## Amazing Grace

fredtgreco said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted no, and I am Vocal about one question in particular in the Heidelberg
> 
> Q & A 7
> 
> Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature
> come from?
> 
> A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
> Adam and Eve, in Paradise.^1
> This fall has so poisoned our nature^2
> that we are born sinners—
> corrupt from conception on.^3
> 
> 
> I do not agree that Eve's name should be in there. It is specifically mentioned by Paul that sin entered through one man, that is Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 5.3 "_they being the root of all mankind._" It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first *parents *unto *their *posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of *Adam's *first sin" (emphases added).
Click to expand...


Why do you think it is in there as such? It is very inconsistant. Yet this gives me no cause to denounce the whole document. Just proves it is neither inerrant nor infallible. What could be done to rewrite this correctly? And did you mean heading VI Fred? HAP. VI. - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.

1.* Our first parents*, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.

2. By this sin* they fell* from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.

3. *They being the root of all mankind,* the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> This is a little off topic, but the Holy Spirit speaks of many antichrists as well as the antichrist. I think the Confession is quite right to do so. But as I've had cause to say before, chapter 25 of the Confession is dealing with ecclesiology not eschatology. Propositionally therefore the statement about the antichrist only requires us to affirm (1.) that Christ alone is the head of the church, (2.) that the antichrist falsely assumes that headship, and (3.) the Pope, in falsely assuming that headship, acts as the antichrist. It's worth pointing out that because the confessional statement interprets the apostle's language as referring to a system rather than an individual man, it leaves open the possibility of a future development of the antichristian system of Papal Rome.




That I can agree with.


----------



## KMK

I voted that there are some things that I am unsure about and am vocal about but I want to stress that this is only in the arena of my personal pilgrimage. From the pulpit I would never intentionally cast doubt on my own confession. 

And by voting that I am 'vocal' I mean that I ask questions. I have learned that it is never wise to argue with the framers. Their individual wisdom is far above mine, let alone their collective wisdom. It never ceases to amaze me how the wisdom behind these 'propositions' is vindicated time and time again as I mature in my own wisdom.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> I voted that there are some things that I am unsure about and am vocal about but I want to stress that this is only in the arena of my personal pilgrimage. From the pulpit I would never intentionally cast doubt on my own confession.
> 
> And by voting that I am 'vocal' I mean that I ask questions. I have learned that it is never wise to argue with the framers. Their individual wisdom is far above mine, let alone their collective wisdom. It never ceases to amaze me how the wisdom behind these 'propositions' is vindicated time and time again as I mature in my own wisdom.



May I ask what one you refer to Ken?


----------



## KMK

Amazing Grace said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted that there are some things that I am unsure about and am vocal about but I want to stress that this is only in the arena of my personal pilgrimage. From the pulpit I would never intentionally cast doubt on my own confession.
> 
> And by voting that I am 'vocal' I mean that I ask questions. I have learned that it is never wise to argue with the framers. Their individual wisdom is far above mine, let alone their collective wisdom. It never ceases to amaze me how the wisdom behind these 'propositions' is vindicated time and time again as I mature in my own wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask what one you refer to Ken?
Click to expand...


1689


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted no, and I am Vocal about one question in particular in the Heidelberg
> 
> Q & A 7
> 
> Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature
> come from?
> 
> A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
> Adam and Eve, in Paradise.^1
> This fall has so poisoned our nature^2
> that we are born sinners—
> corrupt from conception on.^3
> 
> 
> I do not agree that Eve's name should be in there. It is specifically mentioned by Paul that sin entered through one man, that is Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 5.3 "_they being the root of all mankind._" It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first *parents *unto *their *posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of *Adam's *first sin" (emphases added).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think it is in there as such? It is very inconsistant. Yet this gives me no cause to denounce the whole document. Just proves it is neither inerrant nor infallible. What could be done to rewrite this correctly? And did you mean heading VI Fred? HAP. VI. - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.
> 
> 1.* Our first parents*, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
> 
> 2. By this sin* they fell* from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
> 
> 3. *They being the root of all mankind,* the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
Click to expand...


These are interesting points; surely Romans 5 teaches that it was Adam's sin, not our first parent's sin, which was imputed to us as Adam alone was our federal head??


----------



## MW

I am afraid you are confusing imputation with corruption. Imputation is only of Adam's act of disobedience. Corruption comes through father and mother. The locus classicus for orginal sin is Ps. 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my *mother* conceive me."



fredtgreco said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted no, and I am Vocal about one question in particular in the Heidelberg
> 
> Q & A 7
> 
> Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature
> come from?
> 
> A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
> Adam and Eve, in Paradise.^1
> This fall has so poisoned our nature^2
> that we are born sinners—
> corrupt from conception on.^3
> 
> 
> I do not agree that Eve's name should be in there. It is specifically mentioned by Paul that sin entered through one man, that is Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 6.3 "_they being the root of all mankind._" It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first *parents *unto *their *posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of *Adam's *first sin" (emphases added).
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 5.3 "_they being the root of all mankind._" It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first *parents *unto *their *posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of *Adam's *first sin" (emphases added).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think it is in there as such? It is very inconsistant. Yet this gives me no cause to denounce the whole document. Just proves it is neither inerrant nor infallible. What could be done to rewrite this correctly? And did you mean heading VI Fred? HAP. VI. - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.
> 
> 1.* Our first parents*, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
> 
> 2. By this sin* they fell* from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
> 
> 3. *They being the root of all mankind,* the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are interesting points; surely Romans 5 teaches that it was Adam's sin, not our first parent's sin, which was imputed to us as Adam alone was our federal head??
Click to expand...


 and I will contribute to its offtopicness...

Could it be that they essentially see Adam's sin as his and her sin because they are essentially the same person? She is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and at their marriage he 'cleaved' unto her and they became 'one flesh'? The idea that a married couple are essentially one person with different identities is carried throughout the Bible. Perhaps the Divine's view was that the reference to 'Adam' in Rom 5 is not a reference to Adam as an individual, but to Adam as the head of a family. This would jibe with Eve 'being decieved, was in the transgression.' (1 Tim 2:14) 

Just thinking off the top of my head.


----------



## KMK

I cross posted with Rev Winzer. Forget what I said, his explanation is much better.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think it is in there as such? It is very inconsistant. Yet this gives me no cause to denounce the whole document. Just proves it is neither inerrant nor infallible. What could be done to rewrite this correctly? And did you mean heading VI Fred? HAP. VI. - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.
> 
> 1.* Our first parents*, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
> 
> 2. By this sin* they fell* from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
> 
> 3. *They being the root of all mankind,* the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are interesting points; surely Romans 5 teaches that it was Adam's sin, not our first parent's sin, which was imputed to us as Adam alone was our federal head??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I will contribute to its offtopicness...
> 
> Could it be that they essentially see Adam's sin as his and her sin because they are essentially the same person? She is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and at their marriage he 'cleaved' unto her and they became 'one flesh'? The idea that a married couple are essentially one person with different identities is carried throughout the Bible. Perhaps the Divine's view was that the reference to 'Adam' in Rom 5 is not a reference to Adam as an individual, but to Adam as the head of a family. This would jibe with Eve 'being decieved, was in the transgression.' (1 Tim 2:14)
> 
> Just thinking off the top of my head.
Click to expand...


That is a very interesting point. I look forward to reading the responses. Though I would not entirely say it was  Ken, as we are discussing the role of the confessions in the life of the church.


----------



## MW

I've never had reason to doubt that extraordinary providence may dispense with means and still produce a result which is in accord with the nature of second causes. This is in fact what occurs in all the miracles recorded in Scripture. The blind man was not healed by ordinary means, but his new found ability was undoubtedly that which is called the power of sight.



fredtgreco said:


> More thorny is reconciling WCF 5.2 "Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, *all things* come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth *them *to fall out *according to the nature of second causes*, either necessarily, freely, or contingently" (the only possible antecedent for "them" must be "all things." (this implies that all things fall out according to the nature of second causes) with:
> 
> WCF 5.3: "God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, *yet is free to work without, above, and against them*, at His pleasure".
> 
> It is very likely that the error contained therein is grammatical, yet sufficient to show that the Confession is not without error (which is the definition of inerrant).
> 
> Having said that, I have complete confidence in the Confession as a faithful and true summary of Biblical truth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that the WCF is inerrant but I also agree with Rev. Winzer (and others) that something communicated by man can be without error in terms of the principles it conveys. Were this not so it would make the communication of the Gospel impossible.

I've been trying to note how people treat their own reading of Scripture as functionally inerrant in many cases. They convince themselves that by reading the Scriptures they have now come to an understanding of the Truth by which they can roundly dismiss all error. What they don't reckon, however, is the deceptiveness of their own heart. This Proverb captures some of that truth:



> Prov 11:14 Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.



I think there is far too much confidence among many to assume that they have not been deceived or that, by studying for themselves that they'll be in a place to reform the Church.

The real irony is when such men expect others to listen to their teaching on the Word. Shouldn't they enjoin people not to listen to them as they are merely re-expressing and explaining what the Word says? As soon as they begin to explain the proper interpretation of a passage then, according to their standard of "trust nobody but yourself" they need to realize that they have nothing to say to anyone but themselves. Thus, a Church like this would include no expository preaching but simply the reading of the Word with everybody deciding for themselves what seems right in their own eyes.

But the irony goes further because Churches are never like this. Such men typically gather a following around themselves and even as they disdain those that read a _man-made Confession_ {emphasis added to note disgust}, they hang on every word of their leader who is, after all, "...just telling us what the Bible says."

In the end, the real question is not whether or not a person is going to make eternal life and death decisions on the basis of a creed. The question is the creed they are going to choose.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> I am afraid you are confusing imputation with corruption. Imputation is only of Adam's act of disobedience. Corruption comes through father and mother. The locus classicus for orginal sin is Ps. 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my *mother* conceive me."
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted no, and I am Vocal about one question in particular in the Heidelberg
> 
> Q & A 7
> 
> Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature
> come from?
> 
> A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
> Adam and Eve, in Paradise.^1
> This fall has so poisoned our nature^2
> that we are born sinners—
> corrupt from conception on.^3
> 
> 
> I do not agree that Eve's name should be in there. It is specifically mentioned by Paul that sin entered through one man, that is Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 6.3 "_they being the root of all mankind._" It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first *parents *unto *their *posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of *Adam's *first sin" (emphases added).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is a stretch Mat. Eve is never mentioned in the pauline corpus. All our sin/corruption, depravity, flows from Adam as our federal head. Adam is the fountain of original sin and imputed sin. The corruption of our human nature is always attributed to Adam. Therefore I stand in my assesment, the wording is in error regarding this and should be changed. Eve is NEVER spoken of as falling. It is forever the Fall of Adam.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> This is a stretch Mat. Eve is never mentioned in the pauline corpus. All our sin/corruption, depravity, flows from Adam as our federal head. Adam is the fountain of original sin and imputed sin. The corruption of our human nature is always attributed to Adam. Therefore I stand in my assesment, the wording is in error regarding this and should be changed. Eve is NEVER spoken of as falling. It is forever the Fall of Adam.



Please feel free to call me Matthew. 

First, you did not offer any comment on Ps. 51:5, where the Psalmist's sin is directly traced back to his conception in the womb of his mother.

Secondly, it is simply false to say that Eve is never mentioned in the Pauline corpus. 1 Tim. 2 specifically mentions her transgression, and does so in the context of continuing ramifications for female behaviour and salvation.

Thirdly, you are still confounding imputation with corruption -- legal guilt and original sin. Our guiltiness is the result of one sin alone -- Adam's first sin. Our fallen nature is inherited from fallen parents -- that which is born of the flesh is flesh.


----------



## KMK

Amazing Grace said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid you are confusing imputation with corruption. Imputation is only of Adam's act of disobedience. Corruption comes through father and mother. The locus classicus for orginal sin is Ps. 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my *mother* conceive me."
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 6.3 "_they being the root of all mankind._" It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first *parents *unto *their *posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of *Adam's *first sin" (emphases added).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a stretch Mat. Eve is never mentioned in the pauline corpus. All our sin/corruption, depravity, flows from Adam as our federal head. *Adam is the fountain of original sin and imputed sin*. The corruption of our human nature is always attributed to Adam. Therefore I stand in my assesment, the wording is in error regarding this and should be changed. Eve is NEVER spoken of as falling. It is forever the Fall of Adam.
Click to expand...


What is the difference between 'original' sin and 'imputed' sin? Isn't Adam's 'original' sin the same sin that is 'imputed' to us?



> WCF VI:I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, *sinned*, in eating the forbidden fruit. *This* their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
> 
> II. By *this* sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]
> 
> III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of *this* sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.



And Rev Winzer, help me to understand you. Am I on the right path concerning the confession?



> VII:I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. *(Original Sin)*
> 
> II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. *(Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)*
> 
> III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed *(Imputation: Turn to Chapter XI)*; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. *(Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)*
> 
> IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. *(Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)*
> 
> V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. *(Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)*
> 
> VI. Every sin, both original *(Imputed: Turn to Chapter XI)* and actual *(Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)*, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal and eternal.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> Incidentally, I'm not arguing that the WCF is inerrant but I also agree with Rev. Winzer (and others) that something communicated by man can be without error in terms of the principles it conveys. Were this not so it would make the communication of the Gospel impossible.
> 
> I've been trying to note how people treat their own reading of Scripture as functionally inerrant in many cases. They convince themselves that by reading the Scriptures they have now come to an understanding of the Truth by which they can roundly dismiss all error. What they don't reckon, however, is the deceptiveness of their own heart. This Proverb captures some of that truth:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prov 11:14 Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is far too much confidence among many to assume that they have not been deceived or that, by studying for themselves that they'll be in a place to reform the Church.
> 
> The real irony is when such men expect others to listen to their teaching on the Word. Shouldn't they enjoin people not to listen to them as they are merely re-expressing and explaining what the Word says? As soon as they begin to explain the proper interpretation of a passage then, according to their standard of "trust nobody but yourself" they need to realize that they have nothing to say to anyone but themselves. Thus, a Church like this would include no expository preaching but simply the reading of the Word with everybody deciding for themselves what seems right in their own eyes.
> 
> But the irony goes further because Churches are never like this. Such men typically gather a following around themselves and even as they disdain those that read a _man-made Confession_ {emphasis added to note disgust}, they hang on every word of their leader who is, after all, "...just telling us what the Bible says."
> 
> In the end, the real question is not whether or not a person is going to make eternal life and death decisions on the basis of a creed. The question is the creed they are going to choose.
Click to expand...


Many of these types that you describe, in my experience, come from a RC background and their resistance to creeds seems to stem from that. Just the mention of the word 'catechism class' causes many RCs to cringe. But what is interesting is they've left the RC Pope just to adopt another one. Themselves! They look at themselves as Popes and their own interpretation is authoritative.

Another thing I have noticed is that people don't like the Reformed confessions because usually they find the confessions are right and they are wrong. Most people do not like to find out their stronghold is wrong, especially when it is a stronghold that they have held for a long time, and was also held by some beloved pastor from their past. (Try preaching about 1 Tim 2:12 to an older, liberal baptist congregation!)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ken,

Very true but I was also thinking of "Bible belt" types or, especially, Calvary Chapel folk. The latter sect is very culpable to the cult of personality even as they proclaim their freedom from man-made Confessions.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> And Rev Winzer, help me to understand you. Am I on the right path concerning the confession?



I'm not sure what you are asking, Pastor Klein; but please consider Shorter Catechism answer 18 and Larger Catechism answer 25 for a clear definition of original sin.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> I've never had reason to doubt that extraordinary providence may dispense with means and still produce a result which is in accord with the nature of second causes. This is in fact what occurs in all the miracles recorded in Scripture. The blind man was not healed by ordinary means, but his new found ability was undoubtedly that which is called the power of sight.



Rev. Winzer,

First: that is not what the confession says. It says that God may work *"against"* second causes. That means that they are not "in accord with the nature of second causes."

Second: Scripture records incidents that back up the Confession's formulation in 6.3 - the sun moving backward, the dead rising, etc. These are not the result of, or in accord with second causes, but "*without, above, and against"* them.

I fail to see how pointing out a grammatical inconsistency does any violence to the Confession. A strained reading does, however.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> First: that is not what the confession says. It says that God may work *"against"* second causes. That means that they are not "in accord with the nature of second causes."



This is where the confusion is arising from. Please read it again and it will be seen the Confession does not say He may work against second causes, but against means. You are equating the two things, where the Confession clearly distinguishes them. I think it is important to ensure the proper meaning of the Confession is understood before error is charged upon it.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Rev Winzer, help me to understand you. Am I on the right path concerning the confession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are asking, Pastor Klein; but please consider Shorter Catechism answer 18 and Larger Catechism answer 25 for a clear definition of original sin.
Click to expand...


Thank you for that suggestion. My question is, does the confession deal with both imputation and corruption in chapter VI, as well as here in LC Q #25?



> Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
> 
> A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin *(this refers to imputation of sin)*, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created *(this refers to the loss of orignal righteousness)*, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually *(this refers to corruption of nature)*; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.



And if so, that could help resolve the dilemma posed above. Adam's sin is referred to only in the context of imputed sin, and not to the loss of righteousness or the corrupted nature. Hence, no contradiction with Q 26:



> A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in *sin*. *(Not *guilt*. This is, therefore, referring to corruption, not imputation)*


----------



## fredtgreco

I understand the meaning of the Confession. Second causes are means. 6.3 clearly implies that there are two kinds of Providence: (1) ordinary, that uses means; and (2) extraordinary which does not, and may work against means.

I fail to see how there could be a second cause that is not also a means. Is it a second cause that life comes from death? Is it a second cause that the sun moves backward or stand still? Is it a second cause that a dead man's bones cause a dead man to be alive? Is it a second cause that iron swims/floats?

Please explain to me how these are in accordance with second causes.


----------



## MW

Pastor Klein, Yes, Larger Catechism 25 clarifies that original sin is the common designation for the corruption of man's nature. This provides the key to unlocking the correct meaning of "original sin" in answer 26. I hope that is what you were looking for. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Fred,

I'm certain Matthew will respond himself but let me see if I'm stating what he's saying another way.

WCF 5.2 is noting that everything that happens after the first cause (decree) falls out according the nature of secondary causes (providence). The statement is more a definition of secondary causality itself - that is all that happens after the first cause falls out according to providence.

WCF 5.3, on the other hand, is dealing with the fact that God sometimes interrupts ordinary providence (what some call "natural laws") and works without or supercedes their normal operation.

But, as Matthew noted, even when He's doing that, He's still using secondary causes. For example, in Joshua, the sun has stopped in the sky to prolong the day - its natural course has been interrupted. Nevertheless, even though ordinary means have been interrupted it's the same sun providing prolonged light for the battle.

That might not completely resolve the issue if there's another knot but it seems correct to me.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> Please explain to me how these are in accordance with second causes.



The problem is with the way the sections are being connected together. First, section 1 tells us what providence is -- preservation and gubernation. Next, section 2 tells us what providence does -- orders all things to fall out according to the nature of second causes. This is obvious. Afterall, providence is not creation, but a maintaining of what has been created. Then we are told that all things fall out according to the nature of second causes either necessarily, freely, or contingently; and the Scripture proofs illustrate well what is meant by these terms. Then section 3 tells us there is an ordinary providence in which God makes use of means. What means? are these the second causes of the previous section? How could that be possible since the ordering of second causes is the very definition of how providence works as explained in the previous section. If God all of a sudden ordered something without the use of second causes that would be a creation, bringing of something from nothing, not a maintenance of something which already existed. What then are the means? It is the ordinary manner in which second causes produce natural effects. God may dispense with this ordinary manner and produce the effect in an extraordinary way, which is called extraordinary providence.


----------



## etexas

I voted that I was an Arminian Ninja Spy, cause it sounds cool. ......I'll let you smart folk take it back from here.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> The problem is with the way the sections are being connected together. First, section 1 tells us what providence is -- preservation and *gubernation*.



Aha, now I see your secret. Make up words to define your schematic...

I know it has a definition, i just know it is fake though...


Matthew, Ill respond soon to your misapplication of Original, imputed, corruption thought involving eve soon


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a stretch Mat. Eve is never mentioned in the pauline corpus. All our sin/corruption, depravity, flows from Adam as our federal head. Adam is the fountain of original sin and imputed sin. The corruption of our human nature is always attributed to Adam. Therefore I stand in my assesment, the wording is in error regarding this and should be changed. Eve is NEVER spoken of as falling. It is forever the Fall of Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please feel free to call me Matthew.
> 
> First, you did not offer any comment on Ps. 51:5, where the Psalmist's sin is directly traced back to his conception in the womb of his mother.
> 
> Secondly, it is simply false to say that Eve is never mentioned in the Pauline corpus. 1 Tim. 2 specifically mentions her transgression, and does so in the context of continuing ramifications for female behaviour and salvation.
> 
> Thirdly, you are still confounding imputation with corruption -- legal guilt and original sin. Our guiltiness is the result of one sin alone -- Adam's first sin. Our fallen nature is inherited from fallen parents -- that which is born of the flesh is flesh.
Click to expand...


Ok Matthew, I do feel free...But I must say you do have an uncanny resemblance of Rip Taylor. Its spooky. Therefore you cannot be right.  jk

1) psalm 51 only speaks of David's lament over his bent towards sin. Inherited from Adam. If you are deducing the propogation of sin as traducian, I can see why you take this course. But the woman plays no role in the propogation of this sin. Gen 5:3 is very clear on this: 3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son *in his own likeness, and after his image*; and called his name Seth: Seth's nature, corruption did not come from Eve. This is also why Christ did not inherit a corrupted nature. No earthly Father. Ihereited sin is therefore directly from Adam where eve did not have any active role in this transferance. 

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

Shapen and conceive are 2 words that basically mean the same thing. To be brought forth. 

The BC states:

"We believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their mother's womb are infected, and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof, and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind."


Common Book of Prayer, Articles of Religion IX & X: "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the *offspring of Adam*;

It also makes sense that we do not inherit sins from out natural parents, or else we would be held accountable for allof their sins. Yet I do agree there is a distinction between Imputed sin(guilt) vs corruption/inherited sin(natural ruin). But both flow from Adam, not eve

Creationism settles this anyway. And that school is the one I subscribe to..


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is with the way the sections are being connected together. First, section 1 tells us what providence is -- preservation and *gubernation*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha, now I see your secret. Make up words to define your schematic...
> 
> I know it has a definition, i just know it is fake though...
Click to expand...


Obadiah Sedgwick (Westminster divine) wrote a treatise on providence practically handled. He uses the twofold distinction of conservation and gubernation. Gubernation means "governance." It was once a widely used word, because it has a long pedigree through Latin back to Greek, where it describes the person who steers the ship. See Acts 27:11.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> It also makes sense that we do not inherit sins from out natural parents, or else we would be held accountable for allof their sins.



Now you are confusing original sin and actual transgressions. May I suggest you do some more study on the subject before speaking dogmatically about it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also makes sense that we do not inherit sins from out natural parents, or else we would be held accountable for allof their sins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are confusing original sin and actual transgressions. May I suggest you do some more study on the subject before speaking dogmatically about it.
Click to expand...


 Hmm...intriguing...it does seem from Scripture that certain people are more prone to some sins that others (Paul's argument that the Cretans were liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons for example). Does this indicate that certain sinful tendencies are inherited, while original sin is imputed??


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Hmm...intriguing...it does seem from Scripture that certain people are more prone to some sins that others (Paul's argument that the Cretans were liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons for example). Does this indicate that certain sinful tendencies are inherited, while original sin is imputed??



Using the language technically, only Adam's first sin is imputed; by means of it we fall from original righteousness; but "original sin" is the corruption of our whole nature. This is inherited from our parents. We need to remember that the term was used acceptably without any reference to "imputation." As for particular vices, the apostle Peter says the vain conversation is received by tradition. There is a place for imitation so far as actual transgression is concerned.


----------



## KMK

Is there a limit to how many times one can 'thank' Rev Winzer in one thread?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Is there a limit to how many times one can 'thank' Rev Winzer in one thread?



He is the Puritan Board equivalent of Shane Warne (an Aussie cricketer who took a lot of wickets) - so probably not.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is with the way the sections are being connected together. First, section 1 tells us what providence is -- preservation and *gubernation*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha, now I see your secret. Make up words to define your schematic...
> 
> I know it has a definition, i just know it is fake though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obadiah Sedgwick (Westminster divine) wrote a treatise on providence practically handled. He uses the twofold distinction of conservation and gubernation. Gubernation means "governance." It was once a widely used word, because it has a long pedigree through Latin back to Greek, where it describes the person who steers the ship. See Acts 27:11.
Click to expand...


Permit me to recommend Obadiah Sedgwick's treatise (highlighted previously in this thread) along with the introductory essay by Joel Beeke and Matthew Winzer very, very highly!


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also makes sense that we do not inherit sins from out natural parents, or else we would be held accountable for allof their sins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are confusing original sin and actual transgressions. May I suggest you do some more study on the subject before speaking dogmatically about it.
Click to expand...


Excellent rebuttal Matthew. Please spare me the patronizing words. You are a traducian, I am a creationist. there is the difference. The HC and WCF could be much more clear on this point. Regardless of how much I study, Eve is not reponsible for my inherit sin/sin nature. I have shown clearly scripture. So instead of this response, replay to my points as i did yours please.

You use psalm 51 as your foundation. But it is made of sand regarding eve


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Excellent rebuttal Matthew. Please spare me the patronizing words. You are a traducian, I am a creationist. there is the difference. The HC and WCF could be much more clear on this point. Regardless of how much I study, Eve is not reponsible for my inherit sin/sin nature. I have shown clearly scripture. So instead of this response, replay to my points as i did yours please.
> 
> You use psalm 51 as your foundation. But it is made of sand regarding eve



Friend, need I remind you that this aspect of the discussion arose because you registered your dissent from the confessional documents on this particular point; and now you are quoting the confessional documents to substantiate a point that has never been officially addressed. Moreover, you dogmatically assert that I hold to a position that I haven't avowed. I apologise if it sounds like I am patronising you. My intent was merely to suggest a better manner of presenting your thoughts.


----------



## KMK

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aha, now I see your secret. Make up words to define your schematic...
> 
> I know it has a definition, i just know it is fake though...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obadiah Sedgwick (Westminster divine) wrote a treatise on providence practically handled. He uses the twofold distinction of conservation and gubernation. Gubernation means "governance." It was once a widely used word, because it has a long pedigree through Latin back to Greek, where it describes the person who steers the ship. See Acts 27:11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Permit me to recommend Obadiah Sedgwick's treatise (highlighted previously in this thread) along with the introductory essay by Joel Beeke and Matthew Winzer very, very highly!
Click to expand...


I ordered my copy today!


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent rebuttal Matthew. Please spare me the patronizing words. You are a traducian, I am a creationist. there is the difference. The HC and WCF could be much more clear on this point. Regardless of how much I study, Eve is not reponsible for my inherit sin/sin nature. I have shown clearly scripture. So instead of this response, replay to my points as i did yours please.
> 
> You use psalm 51 as your foundation. But it is made of sand regarding eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, need I remind you that this aspect of the discussion arose because you registered your dissent from the confessional documents on this particular point; and now you are quoting the confessional documents to substantiate a point that has never been officially addressed. Moreover, you dogmatically assert that I hold to a position that I haven't avowed. I apologise if it sounds like I am patronising you. My intent was merely to suggest a better manner of presenting your thoughts.
Click to expand...


Matthew: you are correct that I dissent against the wording of the documents on this issue, but where have I now used them to substantiate the same vein of thought? I am confused by your opinion here. And what position are you refering to? That you are a traducian i regards to the propogation of the sin nature?


----------



## a mere housewife

Wow. 7 other evil ninja arminian spies on the board. We really need to synchronize our plans for destruction.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Matthew: you are correct that I dissent against the wording of the documents on this issue, but where have I now used them to substantiate the same vein of thought? I am confused by your opinion here. And what position are you refering to? That you are a traducian i regards to the propogation of the sin nature?



Let's backtrack. You denied the confessional teaching that man's corrupt nature is inherited from his parents. Because I defended that position you called me traducian, even though I never avowed it. Nevertheless, you think the confessions teach creationism. So we have a situation where I maintain the same teaching as the confession regarding original sin being conveyed from parents to their posterity, yet you regard the confessions as upholding creationism and me as upholding traducianism. I hope you can see your inconsistency.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew: you are correct that I dissent against the wording of the documents on this issue, but where have I now used them to substantiate the same vein of thought? I am confused by your opinion here. And what position are you refering to? That you are a traducian i regards to the propogation of the sin nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's backtrack. You denied the confessional teaching that man's corrupt nature is inherited from his parents. Because I defended that position you called me traducian, even though I never avowed it. Nevertheless, you think the confessions teach creationism. So we have a situation where I maintain the same teaching as the confession regarding original sin being conveyed from parents to their posterity, yet you regard the confessions as upholding creationism and me as upholding traducianism. I hope you can see your inconsistency.
Click to expand...


You need not avow it. It is either or. I never said I believe the confessons teach creationism though. How could I make that statement when I disagree with including eve in the mix as the documents present. Is there a post I said that Matthew?


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> You need not avow it. It is either or. I never said I believe the confessons teach creationism though. How could I make that statement when I disagree with including eve in the mix as the documents present. Is there a post I said that Matthew?



What are you claiming then? that the confessions are traducian? that everyone who ascribes original sin conveyed from parents to posterity is traducian?


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need not avow it. It is either or. I never said I believe the confessons teach creationism though. How could I make that statement when I disagree with including eve in the mix as the documents present. Is there a post I said that Matthew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you claiming then? that the confessions are traducian? that everyone who ascribes original sin conveyed from parents to posterity is traducian?
Click to expand...


Yes becasue that is the definition is it not?


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need not avow it. It is either or. I never said I believe the confessons teach creationism though. How could I make that statement when I disagree with including eve in the mix as the documents present. Is there a post I said that Matthew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you claiming then? that the confessions are traducian? that everyone who ascribes original sin conveyed from parents to posterity is traducian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes becasue that is the definition is it not?
Click to expand...


No, that's not the definition. Both creationists and traducians hold that original sin is conveyed from parents to posterity. It's merely a question of _how_ given their respective positions. Again, I can only suggest further reading on the subject.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you claiming then? that the confessions are traducian? that everyone who ascribes original sin conveyed from parents to posterity is traducian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes becasue that is the definition is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not the definition. Both creationists and traducians hold that original sin is conveyed from parents to posterity. It's merely a question of _how_ given their respective positions. Again, I can only suggest further reading on the subject.
Click to expand...


It is amazing how one can reconstruct plain definitions and mold them into grey. Then I guess for 4 years i have been reading the wrong material. I do not know what creationist view you are referring to, but if one exists then it is a charicature of the truth. Id like to know how one attains this new ecclesiastical internet authority to rewrite definitions Matthew, now that's what I would like to be enlightened on, becasue thats where I am confused. Regarding traducianism vs creationism, I am not confused at all.

if we think this through I believe the answer is very clear. If Adam's soul and ours had a different origin:

* (1) Adam by God breathing into him the breath of life, and
* (2) us having our souls imparted by our parents (Traducianism)

they could not be said to be of the same species because:

* (1) Adam's was from nothing and inbreathed directly by God, and
* (2) ours would be from "something" and propagated by our parents 

Thus, Jesus could not be the “last man Adam,” since He would have been born of a different species in Mary. Or, if it is accepted that Jesus is "the last man Adam," (because Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit ...) He could ONLY redeem Adam and not his posterity, whom would be propagated of different parents in Traducianism. Thus, either way Jesus could not be the redeemer of God’s elect who, in Traducianism, would each be made from some preexisting material and wholly dissimilar. 

Eccl 12:7 and the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto *God who gave it.* .

Zech 12:1 … Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and *formeth the spirit of man within him: 

Look at the creation of Eve… Would not Adam have said not only that Eve was "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" but "soul of my soul" (Gen 2:23)?







*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nicholas,

You're treading on thin ice regarding your tone in this thread. So thin that you're about to be banned from it.

Matthew is not debating the definition of traducianism v. creationism with you. He merely stated that Creationism does not necessarily deny that corruption is conveyed from parents to posterity but that it views that conveyance differently.

Watch your attitude. I've stayed out of this but I won't for long.

I wouldn't take too much pride in four years of study to assume it gives you some scholarly credibility in this exchange that others lack.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> It is amazing how one can reconstruct plain definitions and mold them into grey. Then I guess for 4 years i have been reading the wrong material. I do not know what creationist view you are referring to, but if one exists then it is a charicature of the truth. Id like to know how one attains this new ecclesiastical internet authority to rewrite definitions Matthew, now that's what I would like to be enlightened on, becasue thats where I am confused. Regarding traducianism vs creationism, I am not confused at all.



This is the second time I've been accused of novelty in this thread, and for the second time I'll refute it with a simple reference from the past. A. A. Hodge: "Many *creationists*, however, refer the propagation of habitual sin to *natural generation*, in a general sense, as a law whereby God ordains that children shall be like their parents, without inquiring at all as to the method." (Outlines, 352.)


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> Nicholas,
> 
> You're treading on thin ice regarding your tone in this thread. So thin that you're about to be banned from it.
> 
> Matthew is not debating the definition of traducianism v. creationism with you. He merely stated that Creationism does not necessarily deny that corruption is conveyed from parents to posterity but that it views that conveyance differently.
> 
> Watch your attitude. I've stayed out of this but I won't for long.
> 
> I wouldn't take too much pride in four years of study to assume it gives you some scholarly credibility in this exchange that others lack.



I have a tendancy to speak from the flesh which is not intended Richard. There is no pride taken whatsoever. It is a topic too vast for me to even begin to scratch the surface. That being said, I ask that these distinctions be defined concretely and just not stated as :_He merely stated that Creationism does not necessarily deny that corruption is conveyed from parents to posterity but that it views that conveyance differently._ If I offended Matthew, I apologize. But since he has not eluded to the fact that I have, I was unaware that my tone was offensive.

Thank you for the warning and not banning me from this thread. I find matthew engaging and very articulate; moreso than myself. I have attempted to cover a good amount of ground on the subject and whether Mathew, you or anyone will be satisfied I do not know. I will not say that after all I have said, and my attempt to convey the subjects clearly, I have accomplished this goal to any degree. I pray that God enables some others to set the subject in a clearer light, or may lead some to understand the ideas I have attempted to speak and if they are wrong to bring me repentance.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Another Question on the HC, was presented today in study.

Question 11. Is not God then also merciful?
Answer. God is indeed merciful, [h] but also just; _ therefore his justice requires, [j] that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting [k] punishment of body and soul.

The question was asked, how did Christ satisfy God with everlasting/eternal punishment of body and soul when He was rasied in 3 days. I thought it was a good question, one that was not answered succesfully. Please help...._


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> The question was asked, how did Christ satisfy God with everlasting/eternal punishment of body and soul when He was rasied in 3 days. I thought it was a good question, one that was not answered succesfully. Please help....



The gift is valued according to the altar on which it is presented. Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit, Heb. 9:14, that is to say, He offered His human nature on the altar of His divine nature. His divine nature being eternal, His offering possesses an eternal quality. Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was asked, how did Christ satisfy God with everlasting/eternal punishment of body and soul when He was rasied in 3 days. I thought it was a good question, one that was not answered succesfully. Please help....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gift is valued according to the altar on which it is presented. Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit, Heb. 9:14, that is to say, He offered His human nature on the altar of His divine nature. His divine nature being eternal, His offering possesses an eternal quality. Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.
Click to expand...


Thank you Matthew. Is there writings on this? Can it be understood that His sacrafice is unending?


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.



Well done, Matthew. That's an important distinction, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Church, if I remember rightly, insists that, in every Mass, Christ is offered as a sacrifice anew. Hence, they're use of the crucifix: they won't let our Lord off the cross. Our Lord offering an eternal sacrifice is a far different thing from sacrificing Himself eternally. The former is biblical; the latter is most definitely not.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Thank you Matthew. Is there writings on this? Can it be understood that His sacrafice is unending?



The book of Hebrews is the best place to start. There we find great emphasis placed upon the divine dignity and superiority of Christ's person as a conclusive argument for regarding His sacrifice as supreme. For secondary materials, see Shorter Catechism answer 25; and expositions like those of Boston and Fisher explain the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice.

No, the sacrifice can't be considered unending because it is very clearly marked as something that has been accomplished once in the past. What we do find, however, is that Christ continually presents His one completed sacrifice in the heavenly tabernacle as a part of His continual intercession which He makes for His people whereby He saves them to the uttermost.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done, Matthew. That's an important distinction, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Church, if I remember rightly, insists that, in every Mass, Christ is offered as a sacrifice anew. Hence, they're use of the crucifix: they won't let our Lord off the cross. Our Lord offering an eternal sacrifice is a far different thing from sacrificing Himself eternally. The former is biblical; the latter is most definitely not.
Click to expand...


Good point, Richard. Christ is perpetually humiliated and barely glorified in the Mass and its theology.


----------



## JoeRe4mer

tellville said:


> I was wondering how many here view their respective confession as _functionally_ infallible? I realize no one here would believe that their confession is _actually_ infallible, but it seems to me most people treat the confession as such anyway.
> 
> I was just taking a nap and this question popped in my head. No issue really caused it, just plain serendipitous curiosity.
> 
> Multiple choices are allowed. Also, stating your reasons why if you're a "no" would be interesting.



Could you please explain_ functionally infallible_. I think I have a sense of what you mean, but I would like some clarification to be certain.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Matthew. Is there writings on this? Can it be understood that His sacrafice is unending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The book of Hebrews is the best place to start. There we find great emphasis placed upon the divine dignity and superiority of Christ's person as a conclusive argument for regarding His sacrifice as supreme. For secondary materials, see Shorter Catechism answer 25; and expositions like those of Boston and Fisher explain the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice.
> 
> No, the sacrifice can't be considered unending because it is very clearly marked as something that has been accomplished once in the past. What we do find, however, is that Christ continually presents His one completed sacrifice in the heavenly tabernacle as a part of His continual intercession which He makes for His people whereby He saves them to the uttermost.
Click to expand...



Where I am getting the "unending thought" is located here:

24For Christ has entered, not into holy places(AV) made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God(AW) on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as(AX) the high priest enters(AY) the holy places every year with blood not his own, *26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is,(AZ) he has appeared(BA) once for all(BB) at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.*

THis most assuredly speaks of an eschalogical effect of His death right? The sacrifice of Christ was made in time, however its effect transcends time. Even when time itself is no more, the redemption we have through Christ�s sacrifice will remain. This is the answer I should have given to the person who asked the question.


----------

