# William Cunningham on the need for a system of doctrine



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 17, 2020)

ONE of the leading forms which, in the present day, aversion to divine truth exhibits, is a dislike to precise and definite statements upon the great subjects brought before us in the sacred Scriptures. This dislike to precision and definiteness in doctrinal statements, sometimes assumes the form of reverence for the Bible, as if it arose from an absolute deference to the authority of the divine word, and an unwillingness to mix up the reasonings and deductions of men with the direct declarations of God. We believe that it arises, much more frequently, and to a much greater extent, from a dislike to the controlling influence of Scripture, from a desire to escape, as far as possible without denying its authority, from the trammels of its regulating power as an infallible rule of faith and duty. ...

It has been the generally received doctrine of orthodox divines, and it is in entire accordance with reason and common sense, that we are bound to receive as true, on God’s authority, not only what is “expressly set down in Scripture,” but also what, “by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture” (Westminster Confession, c. i. s. 6 ); and heretics, in every age, and of every class, have, even when they made a profession of receiving what is expressly set down in Scripture, shewn the greatest aversion to what are sometimes called Scripture consequences, that is, inferences or deductions from scriptural statements, beyond what is expressly contained in the mere words of Scripture, as they stand in the page of the sacred record. Some interesting discussion on the subject of the warrantableness, the validity, and the binding obligation of Scripture consequences took place, in the early part of last century, among the English Presbyterians, when some of them had been led to embrace Arian views. ...

For more, see William Cunningham on the need for a system of doctrine.


----------

