# Christology-Mark Jones goes after Ligoniers....



## Scott Bushey

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/02/reviewing-ligoniers-christolog.php

and then here:

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/guest-post-by-mark-jones#.VwHdbtGMVEt.facebook

Apparently, he is leaving A of CE and Ref21:

"I have had to make the decision to resign from Reformation21 & The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals."

His statement is forthcoming...

Sad that Ligoniers fails to stay within the confines of the confession.


----------



## MW

Maybe the tension comes back to thinking that new creeds can be beneficial in the already divided state of the church. No one's "revision" or "new statement" is going to meet every one's approval, least of all the confessionally astute who understand the intricacies involved in making binding theological "tests." When they are bound to meet with disapproval they only produce further division. At the point it becomes a divisive liability the "test" has lost its primary intention of uniting the confessors of the faith.

But I think there is a point in drawing attention to parachurch organisations. They have no dogmatic power given to them by Christ, according to the Westminster Confession and the adopting act of the Church of Scotland. The parachurch organisation cannot have more authority than the civil magistrate.


----------



## TylerRay

Thanks for posting this, Scott. While I appreciate much that Sproul and Ligonier do, Jones is a more precise theologian than probably anyone associate with Ligonier.


----------



## Afterthought

For what it's worth, Ligonier has said they did not necessarily intend it to be an ecclesiastical creed: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/

They also say,

"We appreciate the richness of the ecumenical creeds from the early church, but we also recognize the substantial contributions of the Reformers to our understanding of the person and work of Christ. The Christology Statement attempts to bring the richness of the early creeds and the Reformation confessions together in one concise, accessible statement. We hope the statement serves to point contemporary Christians back to the confessional and creedal riches of their past and helps to equip them to deal with modern denials of important doctrines."

I'm not sure what to make of that. Why not just give them the old creeds? If the idea is to renew interest, why not start a teaching series or promote teaching material for the relevant parts of our old confessions?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Afterthought said:


> For what it's worth, Ligonier has said they did not necessarily intend it to be an ecclesiastical creed: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/
> 
> They also say,
> 
> "We appreciate the richness of the ecumenical creeds from the early church, but we also recognize the substantial contributions of the Reformers to our understanding of the person and work of Christ. The Christology Statement attempts to bring the richness of the early creeds and the Reformation confessions together in one concise, accessible statement. We hope the statement serves to point contemporary Christians back to the confessional and creedal riches of their past and helps to equip them to deal with modern denials of important doctrines."
> 
> I'm not sure what to make of that. Why not just give them the old creeds? If the idea is to renew interest, why not start a teaching series or promote teaching material for the relevant parts of our old confessions?



Ramon,
Exactly. Why did Ligoniers even feel the need to write anything tantamount to confessing when it is already done for us? As you make mention, just reinforce through teaching that which the WCF so dearly holds true.


----------



## Brian R.

I almost want to compare it to producing the NKJV when we already had the beautiful AV! Not trying to start anything. Just a thought that I probably should have kept to myself...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Perhaps folks have had the same view on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Was it a creed? Was it released by the Church as a creed or confession or was it's intent to summarize key issues facing the Church with respect to Biblical Inerrancy? Was it, perhaps, a useful tool to summarize the way the Church has historically spoken about Biblical inerrancy in refutation of those who hedge on such issues?

Let's, at least, parse out the issues. Ligonier has called this a statement on Christology and has even acknowledged they are not a Church with no power to make creedal declarations. They have stated that their purpose is to be an aid to the Church and not to stand in its place.

Let's ask the question whether it is ever appropriate for any individual or organization to provide a statement on something like Christology.

What if someone writes an article on Christology in which he summarizes the key historical points of Christology with affirmations and denials about what he believes the Scriptures teach and what the key historical issues in Church history have been.

Is his article now a creed?

I simply don't agree that because a person or persons composed an articulation of a doctrine that they have stepped into the place of the Church.

Calvin's Geneva catechism: was it a creed?

Perhaps if a Church adopts it as a Confession but in its original articulation it is a helpful catechetical tool.

Now, may we criticize some of the things in the Statement? Certainly.

I think some of the statements need to be re-formulated. Criticizing another's statement as being incomplete or as something that "...I would have emphasized different things if I wrote it..." are not necessarily to the point. In fact, in some of the articles written by many, are they not making statements about Christology and offering historical background?

So why did Ligonier write it? Can't people just read the creeds and Confessions for themselves? Certainly they can.

That said, Ligonier was attempting to pull together the best of Church history on this from the Creeds and the Reformed confessions and articulate them in a way that would help people to understand some of the key Christological issues. One could do the same thing in a Seminary class on Christology or a teaching series at Church as the catechisms are explained. One might even have affirmations and denials to help to understand what we are and are not saying about Christ.

Again, leave aside the mistakes that were made. Those are valid criticisms but let's not ascribe to the Statement some sort of "...we're taking over the Church's role here to make creeds...." If you really believe that this is the case then refrain from ever making a statement about Christology except to read the Creedal and Confessional statements. The moment you veer from strictly creedal statements then you are engaging in explanation or emphasis to drive home a point. If you are not making a new creed then neither is Ligonier and be careful with the measure with which you judge.


----------



## SolaScriptura




----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> Perhaps folks have had the same view on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.



And now we have an evangelical book giving five different views on what is inerrancy. Perhaps in a few years we will have a book calling itself "evangelical" or even "reformed" which has five different views on Christology.


----------



## earl40

Semper Fidelis said:


> Let's, at least, parse out the issues. Ligonier has called this a statement on Christology and has even acknowledged they are not a Church with no power to make creedal declarations. They have stated that their purpose is to be an aid to the Church and not to stand in its place.



I work at a hospital where our "statement" is "To extend the healing ministry of Christ". I know I have been in meetings where our statement comes up and I have the opportunity to explain we technicians, Doctors, nurses, housekeeping staff and hospital administrators are blessed "to extend the _physical_ healing of Christ". I also speak up and say where the proper place to find the spiritual healing of Christ AKA the institution of the church. 

Because of the PB which, is nothing more than a GREAT resource on the net, I have come to the conclusion that Ligioner should be labeled something other than a ministry. The word ministry is not a dirty word but I know for a fact most Christians are very confused of the official function of the Teaching elders of our churches, which is teaching and preaching. Also Ligionier has confused this distinction as evidenced by the podcast I heard just this week....yes I enjoy their "business" a lot. 

If we are to parse this out a tad more Ligioner is not a church, or even a ministry, in the proper sense of the word. Why not call Ligioner a GREAT business?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Family business.


earl40 said:


> Why not call Ligioner a GREAT business?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps folks have had the same view on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have an evangelical book giving five different views on what is inerrancy. Perhaps in a few years we will have a book calling itself "evangelical" or even "reformed" which has five different views on Christology.
Click to expand...


I'm not certain I'm following your logic but, just to be clear, you are stating that the _reason_ why a book exists with 5 different views on inerrancy is _because_ of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

Did I understand you correctly?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am not speaking for Rev. Winzer, but statements put forward by parachurch organizations do not really have any teeth or staying power because they have no ecclesiastical grounding. 

Going on my own now here, but this is one of the things Bannerman talks about in "Church of Christ", something necessary for the Church to recover. That the Church, and only the Church, is authorized by Christ to make "statements" and "creeds" and expect them to be of any real use to the Church for they alone, not Ligonier, not Chicago, not ACE, have the keys of the kingdom.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

To add to what Rev. Glaser said, my take on Rev. Winzer's statement is that he was simply pointing out how far we have drifted from the theology expressed in the historic confessions. This is demonstrated in the fact that there is such a variance of theological belief even amongst those who would consider themselves to be evangelical Christians. Statements like the Chicago statement on inerrancy and Ligonier's recent statement on Christology are certainly not the cause of this, but rather a symptom of this. If Christians had not drifted from the confessions, then such statements would be unneccesary.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Semper Fidelis said:


> Perhaps folks have had the same view on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
> 
> Was it a creed? Was it released by the Church as a creed or confession or was it's intent to summarize key issues facing the Church with respect to Biblical Inerrancy? Was it, perhaps, a useful tool to summarize the way the Church has historically spoken about Biblical inerrancy in refutation of those who hedge on such issues?



Hi Rich,
Thanks for your reply. Here's the statement Ligonier released about the writing; You may be better at discerning the intent, however, in my opinion, they blur some of the lines when they mention the confession:



> I’m excited to announce the release of what I believe is one of the most critical resources that Ligonier Ministries has ever produced. Following significant planning and work with our Ligonier teaching fellows and other scholars and pastors, we’ve completed The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology. Building on the great confessions of faith, this statement is offered to the church out of a desire to help people regain clarity regarding the person and work of Christ. We wanted to provide a statement that can assist the church in applying the classic truths of orthodox biblical Christianity to the challenges of our day.





> Building on the great confessions of faith, this statement is offered to the church out of a desire to help people regain clarity regarding the person and work of Christ.



This statement says much....



> , at least, parse out the issues. Ligonier has called this a statement on Christology and has even acknowledged they are not a Church with no power to make creedal declarations. They have stated that their purpose is to be an aid to the Church and not to stand in its place.



One of the problems here is that Ligonier has a direct relationship to St. Andrews and most people understand that, not to mention that RC is an active pastor who sits at the helm. 



> ask the question whether it is ever appropriate for any individual or organization to provide a statement on something like Christology.



I would say yes. However, I believe the construct of said statement differentiates. 



> What if someone writes an article on Christology in which he summarizes the key historical points of Christology with affirmations and denials about what he believes the Scriptures teach and what the key historical issues in Church history have been.



Again, construct.



> Is his article now a creed?


 Not technically. But it could be said that Ligoniers is pronouncing it as such for the organization.



> I simply don't agree that because a person or persons composed an articulation of a doctrine that they have stepped into the place of the Church.



Not in place of, but in addition to; thats what they seem to have attempted to do. They could have just as easily just wrote a paper on Christology, which is constructed differently.



> Perhaps if a Church adopts it as a Confession but in its original articulation it is a helpful catechetical tool.



Why do we need it? We have the confession and the larger and shorter as a catechetical aid, no? I am following you in regard to the statement-we need to relax a bit. I am not saying that what they did was an attempt to make a creed, per se, but as I have mentioned, it comes across that way in their construct and that may be the issue. Even if the organization itself is parachurch, the organization plays a large part in the Reformed community and the organization should take responsibility in that people see it as a direct, close extension of Dr. Sproul's active ministry in Christ. I am sure the members of St. Andrews sees it as such.

My 2 cents, for what they are worth, brother.


----------



## Steve Curtis

A couple of points not related to the discussion: RC Sproul is pastor of St _Andrews_ and the ministry is Ligonier, as in the Pennsylvania city where it was founded - not Ligoniers.Carry on...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am not speaking for Rev. Winzer, but statements put forward by parachurch organizations do not really have any teeth or staying power because they have no ecclesiastical grounding.
> 
> Going on my own now here, but this is one of the things Bannerman talks about in "Church of Christ", something necessary for the Church to recover. That the Church, and only the Church, is authorized by Christ to make "statements" and "creeds" and expect them to be of any real use to the Church for they alone, not Ligonier, not Chicago, not ACE, have the keys of the kingdom.



Can you quote the section for me, please? I frankly find this grouping of "statements" and making them to be "creeds" to be absurd. What, precisely, is Calvin's Institutes? Who authorized him to write that text? Are the statements he made in that work authorized? Did his example lead to the slippery slope that we now have books written that differ on other points.

What about the writings of...

...Hugh Binning?

Are his writings, which Matthew has quoted repeatedly Iand I'm thankful for), "authorized" by Christ? Was there some process by which the Church authorized what he wrote before his works were published? Is every statement he made a "creed"?

I hear Ligonier is a "business". What is Banner of Truth? What is Reformed Heritage Books? Naphtali Press? Presbyterian Armoury? Reformed Heritage Books? The Trinitarian Bible Society?

Why do I even have a statement on the 9th Commandment on this board? Who authorized me to summarize what the 9th Commandment teaches and how that standard will be applied on this board.

I've said, over and over, that this board is not the Church. Should I shut this board down because I provide so many occasions for people to make "statements" about Christian theology that are not the Church's?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ligonier has posted a FAQ on the Christology statement that elaborates on many of the issues raised herein:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I agree with Rich. While legitimate criticisms may be and have been made regarding Ligonier's statement, this argument about the church is just silly. If taken to its logical conclusion it would mean that no one could ever make a statement about theology unless he was authorised to do so by the church? Have we forgotten the priesthood of all believers? Anyone may make a statement on theology as long as it is congruous with the word of God. We do not need express ecclesiastical authority to make theological statements. This point also raises the question of whether or not Mark Jones and other nay-sayers were authorised by the church to make their critiques of Ligonier? While I agree with much of Dr Jones's criticism of the Ligonier statement, let us drop this argument as it is detracting from the real substance of the critique.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott Bushey said:


> Why do we need it? We have the confession and the larger and shorter as a catechetical aid, no? I am following you in regard to the statement-we need to relax a bit. I am not saying that what they did was an attempt to make a creed, per se, but as I have mentioned, it comes across that way in their construct and that may be the issue. Even if the organization itself is parachurch, the organization plays a large part in the Reformed community and the organization should take responsibility in that people see it as a direct, close extension of Dr. Sprouls active ministry in Christ. I am sure the members of St. Peters sees it as such.



Why do we need your entire post? We have others who have written what you wrote.

Why do you have a website called Semper Reformanda? That has a very Reformed sound to it. One might get the impression that the things you write and the statements contained therin are to influence others to think in a certain way regarding theology. Have you had every statement on your site that could be construed by another as a creed authorized by the Church?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Semper Fidelis said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need it? We have the confession and the larger and shorter as a catechetical aid, no? I am following you in regard to the statement-we need to relax a bit. I am not saying that what they did was an attempt to make a creed, per se, but as I have mentioned, it comes across that way in their construct and that may be the issue. Even if the organization itself is parachurch, the organization plays a large part in the Reformed community and the organization should take responsibility in that people see it as a direct, close extension of Dr. Sprouls active ministry in Christ. I am sure the members of St. Peters sees it as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need your entire post? We have others who have written what you wrote.
> 
> Why do you have a website called Semper Reformanda? That has a very Reformed sound to it. One might get the impression that the things you write and the statements contained therin are to influence others to think in a certain way regarding theology. Have you had every statement on your site that could be construed by another as a creed authorized by the Church?
Click to expand...


Rich,
I had the feeling that you might reply in this way; I got that the first time you made mention; however, again, in my opinion, it is not that Ligonier wrote a paper on Christology, but it is how that paper is constructed and what they wrote in regard to that paper:



> Building on the great confessions of faith, this statement is offered to the church out of a desire to help people regain clarity regarding the person and work of Christ.



Lastly, when I use the term, 'construct' I do so to distinguish the way these documents are formatted. If one was to lay a creedal statement side by side with a short paper on the same subject, one would be easily distinguished, from the other.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Did they produce this statement for use in public worship? Are they encouraging or discouraging that? That didn't appear to be addressed in the faq.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott,

I find myself continuing to scratch my head. I have no problem with the way it is constructed any more than I have a problem with the statement written by Athanasius. Both were written by Elders in Christ's Church. They offered it to the Church. Don't use it if you find it inadequate but don't create the specter that they are imposing a creed when they are simply trying to offer something to help the Church. The polite response would be to thank them for their efforts and not use it. To continue to impugn their motives when they bend over backwards to say they are offering it as an aid is bordering on being churlish. 

Focus on the theological content but, as I said before, be careful about every suspicion you offer because there are likely a ton of examples where you don't apply the standard of shock to a number of things in the history of men or groups of men writing statements and, in many cases, offering creeds to the Church.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Semper Fidelis said:


> Scott,
> 
> I find myself continuing to scratch my head. I have no problem with the way it is constructed any more than I have a problem with the statement written by Athanasius. Both were written by Elders in Christ's Church. They offered it to the Church. Don't use it if you find it inadequate but don't create the specter that they are imposing a creed when they are simply trying to offer something to help the Church. The polite response would be to thank them for their efforts and not use it. To continue to impugn their motives when they bend over backwards to say they are offering it as an aid is bordering on being churlish.
> 
> Focus on the theological content but, as I said before, be careful about every suspicion you offer because there are likely a ton of examples where you don't apply the standard of shock to a number of things in the history of men or groups of men writing statements and, in many cases, offering creeds to the Church.



10-4. 

I guess the pitfall for me is that Athanasius was in the earlier stages of the church; the church didn't have a confession and catechism as we have. Hence, I ask why would Ligonier feel a need to amplify that which our beloved confession etc. already speaks on; this is one of our problems. Who's to say that someone, even Ligonier, comes across with a present day confession in modern lingo. But, I do appreciate what you have said.


----------



## Grimmson

The Athanasian Creed was probably not written by Athanasius, but sometime after his life.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The point about the church vs. the parachurch, especially when it comes to Ligonier (why does Dr. Sproul, being a Presbyterian, keep his church out of the church courts, as an example?), is not whether or not people or groups can or cannot make statements to assist the larger work of the Church of Christ. No one denies that nor is saying otherwise. The argument is more generally about what place does the parachurch have in going above and around the church in answering questions which the Church has already taken up.

There was a similar discussion on the PB when Tim Keller's group came out with the New City Catechism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> There was a similar discussion on the PB when Tim Keller's group came out with the New City Catechism.



Was that catechism meant to replace or supplement the Shorter Catechism?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a similar discussion on the PB when Tim Keller's group came out with the New City Catechism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that catechism meant to replace or supplement the Shorter Catechism?
Click to expand...


Here is the discussion on the PB. As you can see it was a both/and move by Redeemer NYC.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/76268-New-City-Catechism


----------



## DMcFadden

I get the argument over the usurpation of ecclesial authority by parachurch organizations. But, don't we have a fair degree of hybridization when someone establishes an "independent" "Reformed" congregation?



> Saint Andrew’s was founded in 1997 as an independent congregation in the Reformed tradition. As such, Saint Andrew’s is not affiliated with a particular denomination. That is not to say, however, that we are non-denominational or inter-denominational. On the contrary, Saint Andrew’s is an independent congregation on account of our desire to remain steadfast in the Reformed tradition without the influence of denominational governance.



Perhaps, if Ligonier is viewed as an arm of the ministry of a church (is that true? don't really know the formal or informal connection), then, maybe they don't see this in the same way as the ecclesiastical vs. parachurch. As a church, albeit an independent one, they are making churchly statements as a church body. I suppose one could just as easily argue that St. Andrews was an arm of the ministry of Ligonier, insofar as Ligonier started long before St. Andrews by the same founder??? Curiouser and curiouser!

My point was that as a result of the emergence of the parachurch, we are seeing configurations that stretch the definitions and blur the lines of distinction.


----------



## Grimmson

> Saint Andrew’s was founded in 1997 as an independent congregation in the Reformed tradition. As such, Saint Andrew’s is not affiliated with a particular denomination. That is not to say, however, that we are non-denominational or inter-denominational. On the contrary, Saint Andrew’s is an independent congregation on account of our desire to remain steadfast in the Reformed tradition without the influence of denominational governance.



I do not understand how they can say that they are not non-denominational and at the same time be independent congregation unless the PCA, where all their pastors are ordained, could apply some sort of discipline for something to St. Andrews' teaching elders. And I do not get the impression that Ligonier is an extension of St. Andrews. Am curious what Sproul thinks of the relationship between the two and in general with parachurch organizations with churches.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

You're not going to catch me defending parachurch at the expense of real Church and I agree with the concern about the goofy ecclesiology of St. Andrews. What's sad about that, in my mind, is that these kind of works don't last. The longer I'm Presbyterian the more I realize the frustrating aspects of the Church government are also part of the reason that it preserves the Church. I'm also not for replacing catechisms or creeds. My main point was to separate out the issues. Seeing as how we're agreed that the issues of the relative orthodoxy of the statements (that need to be fixed) and the "right" of any individual or group to propose something of use to the Church (what they do with it is up to them) are different issues.

I will note that they said it was composed by the Teaching Fellows (which includes Sinclair Ferguson and now Derek Thomas). Don't know if they had a hand in it or not.

Look, guys, I consider you my friends. I'm just trying to get us to judge their motives with charity and keeping the criticism focused where it ought to be focused.

I'll admit that I'm a bit compromised when it comes to R.C. Sproul. I was a former Roman Catholic in a charismatic congregation in 1997 struggling mightily with sin and wondering why I couldn't "let go" to overcome the sin in my life when I heard R.C. on the radio. I bought Faith Alone and it's the reason I'm in the PCA. Whatever faults he has (and at times things that make me sad and concerned), I still feel an eternal set of gratitude.

Is this the reason I want to cut him some slack? Not necessarily. I guess I just feel like the whole "piling on" seems incongruous. I struggle, for instance, with parachurch ministries like the Navigators but when Jerry Bridges died I couldn't pretend like he had never written anything of value to the Body simply because some of the stuff he did was irregular. It makes me wonder if Christ would say something like: "He that is not against us is for us." Yes, I try, with a lot of people, to get them to re-think some of their irregular works but I also don't want to be curmudgeon-y.


----------



## DMcFadden

Rich, Sproul was key to rescuing me at a critical point in my life as well. I consider him my favorite "popularizer" of theology (and in my lexicon that is a GOOD thing). And, I found the statement on Christology to be fresh and exciting (especially the inclusion of the active and passive forms of obedience and propitiation). But, as a non-Presbyterian, it does trouble me to think of PCA pastors in an independent church.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Ligonier has posted a FAQ on the Christology statement that elaborates on many of the issues raised herein:
> 
> http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/



So first they inappropriately issue a new creed... THEN they create a catechism about it? Unbelievable!


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm not certain I'm following your logic but, just to be clear, you are stating that the _reason_ why a book exists with 5 different views on inerrancy is _because_ of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.



It is worth doing a study on how the dogmatic power has been understood in the reformed tradition. Statements by voluntary bodies can hold no authority for those who believe in the divine right of the church. They show themselves to be divisive. If every voluntary society put forward such statements the divisions would be evident for all to see.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not certain I'm following your logic but, just to be clear, you are stating that the _reason_ why a book exists with 5 different views on inerrancy is _because_ of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is worth doing a study on how the dogmatic power has been understood in the reformed tradition. Statements by voluntary bodies can hold no authority for those who believe in the divine right of the church. They show themselves to be divisive. If every voluntary society put forward such statements the divisions would be evident for all to see.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry Matthew, what you said is true with respect to authority to adopt dogmatic statements. I might note, however, that your statement does not have any dogmatic power as it is offered by a private person. 

That said, you have not demonstrated the logical connection between a statement on inerrancy and the fact that people with differing views write books. It may offer polemical fodder but you haven't demonstrated any other connection.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm sorry Matthew, what you said is true with respect to authority to adopt dogmatic statements. I might note, however, that your statement does not have any dogmatic power as it is offered by a private person.



Rich, There is a right of private judgment and a fellowship of private conference, and that is what we are participating in. The corporate and public power belongs to the church. A corporate and public statement by a voluntary society is something else.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Matthew, what you said is true with respect to authority to adopt dogmatic statements. I might note, however, that your statement does not have any dogmatic power as it is offered by a private person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, There is a right of private judgment and a fellowship of private conference, and that is what we are participating in. The corporate and public power belongs to the church. A corporate and public statement by a voluntary society is something else.
Click to expand...


Also does this all not boil down to a TE practicing out of bounds. As a former RC, like Rich, I see the problems created by an unbiblical ecclesiology and calling a voluntary society a ministry as if any of the teachings has the backing of a proper ecclesiology.

May I add I can write the above knowing I have scripture, and our confessions, to back up what I am saying. I know one will experienced VERY hostile comeback from many otherwise reformed brothers and sisters if the suggestion is made that Pastor Sproul is teaching anything unreformed as defined in our confessions.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Semper Fidelis said:


> Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Is MW a public/corporate (in both senses of that word) entity who acts and speaks for public and church-wide purposes?


----------



## greenbaggins

There are few people who love Sproul as well as I do. I grew up on his teachings and videos. As many have here noted, he has popularized Reformed theology in a way that few others have done. When he is right, he is really right. 

However, he has some theological faults, _as all theologians do_. Sproul is, I believe, incorrect in his views on the Sabbath, and on his views concerning images of Christ. And I believe he is incorrect in his view of Christology on some points. The standard Reformed formulation on this point is that whatever can be said of either the human or the divine nature _can be said of the person as a whole_. Furthermore, what is true of one nature can be said of the whole person, which can, in turn, be designated by either nature. This is why it can be said that Mary is the God-bearer, the _theotokos_, or that God redeemed the church with His own blood. It is the person of Christ who died on the cross, not some abstracted human nature. Sure, God cannot die, but that is different than saying that the person of Christ died on the cross. Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology has one of the very best discussion of these points. If anyone is confused on this point of Christology, I would point them to Hodge.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is MW a public/corporate (in both senses of that word) entity who acts and speaks for public and church-wide purposes?
Click to expand...


He certainly makes public statements that are read by thousands here. We get about close to a million unique visitors per year.

Here's a public statement made by a parachurch organization: http://www.tbsbibles.org/basis/doctrine-of-holy-scripture

Has this statement led to writing of books with differing views on the Doctrine of Holy Scripture?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I'll be honest. I do not really understand the point you are trying to get at here with conflating MW's posts on the PB and Ligonier.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Mr. Bultitude said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ligonier has posted a FAQ on the Christology statement that elaborates on many of the issues raised herein:
> 
> http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first they inappropriately issue a new creed... THEN they create a catechism about it? Unbelievable!
Click to expand...

Really? This sort of _ready, fire, aim_ is getting out of hand. Where in that FAQ do you see anyone claiming to have issued a new creed? In fact the content therein quitclaims any notion of the sort.

Of course, one can say a creed is _a concise statement of belief_ (so says the explanatory essay), which would mean when taken nakedly, anytime we concisely state what we believe we are making creeds. Of course we are not, we are only making statements with no ecclesial authority.

Given the level of discussion taking place here, at least one goal of the Ligonier Statement is happening...conversations are abounding. 

Ligonier Ministries is a Florida non-profit corporation, not a church: 
*http://tinyurl.com/nn84b5j
**http://tinyurl.com/jozn6y2

*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I'll be honest. I do not really understand the point you are trying to get at here with conflating MW's posts on the PB and Ligonier.



It's probably more snarky than useful. I wasn't conflating the two. I was only trying to argue that posts on a public board are not really a form of private correspondence.

I agree that the form of the Ligonier Statement has the form of a creed. By external accounts, then, it gives the impression that a creed has been proferred by a parachurch. They call it a public statement but, again, there is the surface level concern that they have assumed to themselves the authority of the Church to make theological pronouncements.

It's problematic on the surface due to the impression it offers. I get it. One needs to go into the FAQ to figure out that it's not really a creed or that there is no intention to supplant Church authority.

I offered the TBS' statement on the doctrine of Holy Scripture that contains both the form of a "We Believe" that could be met with the same disapprobation but I think most of us are accustomed to "societies" (even if that's just another name for parachurch) summarizing key doctrines because they're trying to influence the Church to think a certain way. We typically don't decry these efforts.

I guess I look at the Ligonier statement as something along the lines of something that is meant to be instructive (because they say as much). In fact, in a real sense, even the errors in the Christology have been an impetus for Churchmen to point out why some of the language is dangerously imprecise even in the tense of some verb choices or other emphases.

Also, I think of some of the Overtures that we see that deal with a general laxity around doctrine. Semper Reformanda means that we're trying to deal, in part, with the Church's slide either by neglect or ambivalence. One could argue that we never needed an Overture to make explicit that Intinction is an unlawful practice within a Confessional Presbyterian body. The reasons for the rise of such practices into psuedo-Anglicanism is a general neglect and ignorance of the Confessional standards and the practical import of the doctrines. The only way to begin the process by which one might add a section to the BCO would be for somebody to sit down a draft a copy that might eventually be adopted by the highest court and the Presbyteries. While it is in its unadopted form someone might conclude that a private individual is trying to state something for the Church but we understand that the language is intended for the Church's adoption.

Leaving aside what Ligonier _is_, one could view the statement as something that they offer as that "draft" of something that Churches might give consideration for. How the Churches use it is up to them but its existence in a certain form does not in itself make it a creedal formula or one in which they have assumed for themselves the role of the Church. They've offered it up for the Church's use.


----------



## Jack K

I usually take it as a good sign when someone cares enough about correct doctrine to make a statement about it. That such a statement will likely not be as robust or precise as the Westminster Standards is a given.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?



The fact I hold public office in a church makes me publicly responsible for the statements I make, but that is all. My aim, by God's grace, is to speak to individuals on an individual basis. I do not issue "statements," in the official sense of that word. The Presbytery that ordains ministers exercises that dogmatic power, and the men under the Presbytery ought to submit to that power.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Really?



No. It was a joke. I thought that _at least_ the wink would make that clear.



> Where in that FAQ do you see anyone claiming to have issued a new creed?



Nowhere. But lots of people in this thread have claimed it. Hence the joke. An FAQ is written in a question-and-answer format, much like a catechism, so I drew a parallel between the historic practice of writing confessions and catechisms and this release of a Christology statement and FAQ. For a laugh.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact I hold public office in a church makes me publicly responsible for the statements I make, but that is all. My aim, by God's grace, is to speak to individuals on an individual basis. I do not issue "statements," in the official sense of that word. The Presbytery that ordains ministers exercises that dogmatic power, and the men under the Presbytery ought to submit to that power.
Click to expand...


What's your opinion on TBS' Statement? More of the same?


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> The fact I hold public office in a church makes me publicly responsible for the statements I make, but that is all. My aim, by God's grace, is to speak to individuals on an individual basis. I do not issue "statements," in the official sense of that word. The Presbytery that ordains ministers exercises that dogmatic power, and the men under the Presbytery ought to submit to that power.




May I assume the practice of "out of bounds" is something that should not be in existence in Presbyterianism? Of course I am making an assumption that I believe to be correct.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Scott-

Your concerns are well justified. I, frankly, find some of the arguments against what you are saying historically and ecclesiastically bizarre.

1) The Westminster Confession and Catechisms were drawn up by an _authorised_ assembly, the authority being given them by parliament. These documents were then adopted by an _authorised_ body, i.e. the general assembly of the Church of Scotland. They were then passed on to those bodies which sprang from the Church of Scotland, and other Presbyterian denominations' _authorised_ assemblies adopting them. They weren't composed and adopted by individual presbyteries or organisations loosely affiliated with the denominations.

2) Yes there have been numerous confessions and creeds written during history, but in the Reformed church there are only six that hold any ecclesiastical authority: the Three Forms of Unity (themselves adopted by an _authorised_ synod) or the Westminster Standards. The other confessions/catechisms were either replaced by these (if they were officially adopted by the authorised bodies) or they never had ecclesiastical authority.

3) The Ecumenical creeds were composed and adopted, again, by _authorised_ councils.

4) The fact that we are living in an age of voluntarism and fragmentation does not in any way void the authority of these documents. If we no longer have the authority to issue new ecclesiastical creeds and confessions it is because the Reformed church at large has abandoned the Biblical Establishment principle. It has left the church "at sea", as they say.

When someone writes an article they are expressing their own opinion. The same applies when someone writes a book, or posts a comment on a blog. Even preaching does not have the authority that an official confession or creed has. To make this argument- that they are all of a spectrum- is utterly disingenuous. This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed. They not only have no authority to do this, they have done it badly. I'm, shall we say, unclear as to the motivation behind the great drive today to produce new creeds. But I'm very suspicious of it...


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> What's your opinion on TBS' Statement?



I am not a member of the TBS because of its parachurch nature. They not only make statements of doctrine which are questionable, but also conduct public worship and promote speakers who teach on the doctrines of the faith.

At the same time I am thankful for the distribution of Bibles and the other materials which they produce.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> May I assume the practice of "out of bounds" is something that should not be in existence in Presbyterianism? Of course I am making an assumption that I believe to be correct.



Contrary to Independency the Presbyterian view of the ministry is that it is catholic. The church is at present quite fragmented, and we desire her to be brought back to a state of visible unity. If a minister being "out of bounds" facilitates unity it would be a good thing. If it is fostering Independency it would be a bad thing.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Matthew's post sparked a thought; I have been to a Ligonier conferences in the past. If I recall, in their presentations of speakers, they start out their day with times of prayer and then worship music and then, finally, the speaker. Yes, there is no official call and no benediction but again, as I have posited earlier, it is much like a church worship service. Does anyone see this as problematic? I guess one could compare this to a private home gathering (but in a larger level) where song is used and a speaker teaches. I dunno, it's gets a bit suspect for me when all the bells and whistles are present: pastors, teachers, prayer,song, etc. 

I don't want to over think this, mind you. Just some random thoughts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott Bushey said:


> Matthew's post sparked a thought; I have been to a Ligonier conferences in the past. If I recall, in their presentations of speakers, they start out their day with times of prayer and then worship music and then, finally, the speaker. Yes, there is no official call and no benediction but again, as I have posited earlier, it is much like a church worship service. Does anyone see this as problematic? I guess one could compare this to a private home gathering (but in a larger level) where song is used and a speaker teaches. I dunno, it's gets a bit suspect for me when all the bells and whistles are present: pastors, teachers, prayer,song, etc.
> 
> I don't want to over think this, mind you. Just some random thoughts.



It's interesting that I just wrote a book on George Whitefield and his impact on American Evangelicalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your opinion on TBS' Statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a member of the TBS because of its parachurch nature. They not only make statements of doctrine which are questionable, but also conduct public worship and promote speakers who teach on the doctrines of the faith.
> 
> At the same time I am thankful for the distribution of Bibles and the other materials which they produce.
Click to expand...


Thank you. I appreciate the interaction. We don't have to agree on all points for me to value your thoughts.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Semper Fidelis said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew's post sparked a thought; I have been to a Ligonier conferences in the past. If I recall, in their presentations of speakers, they start out their day with times of prayer and then worship music and then, finally, the speaker. Yes, there is no official call and no benediction but again, as I have posited earlier, it is much like a church worship service. Does anyone see this as problematic? I guess one could compare this to a private home gathering (but in a larger level) where song is used and a speaker teaches. I dunno, it's gets a bit suspect for me when all the bells and whistles are present: pastors, teachers, prayer,song, etc.
> 
> I don't want to over think this, mind you. Just some random thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that I just wrote a book on George Whitefield and his impact on American Evangelicalism.
Click to expand...


How can I get a copy of that, Rich?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Rich,
From what you have written or know, is the parachurch idea a recent development in church history?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

alexandermsmith said:


> This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.



While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.


----------



## BGF

Semper Fidelis said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.
Click to expand...


From the Explanatory Essay on The LIGONIER STATEMENT on CHRISTOLOGY:

Paragraph labeled FOR WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION


> Ligonier humbly offers this statement for the church. From the early centuries, Christians have used creeds in the church’s liturgy. It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

@Mr. Bultitude

Given that statement from Ligonier, I owe David an apology for taking him to task (and missing his intended humor) on the matter. It seems undeniable that Ligonier proffers the Statement in hopes of it being used as a creed by the church.

Please accept my sincere apology, David. I was wrongheaded and should haven taken my own advice to avoid _firing before aiming_ at another.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

Apology accepted, Patrick.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BGF said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the Explanatory Essay on The LIGONIER STATEMENT on CHRISTOLOGY:
> 
> Paragraph labeled FOR WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION
> 
> 
> 
> Ligonier humbly offers this statement for the church. From the early centuries, Christians have used creeds in the church’s liturgy. It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your point? Is it offered as a creed or a statement? 


Since we want to be PRECISE and actually use our minds carefully, an offered statement is not a creed. It can become a creed but is not so at the offering. Think with your minds and not your emotions. Do they hope their statement will be adopted by those who have ecclesiastical authority so to do? Yes. Is it a creed as offered? They explicitly deny this. One may argue that they are confused but to impute motives to elders when the witness of their own hand denies their imputed intent would be chargeable in a Church court and I would assume that an elder would understand this.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Semper Fidelis said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the Explanatory Essay on The LIGONIER STATEMENT on CHRISTOLOGY:
> 
> Paragraph labeled FOR WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION
> 
> 
> 
> Ligonier humbly offers this statement for the church. From the early centuries, Christians have used creeds in the church’s liturgy. It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point? Is it offered as a creed or a statement?
> 
> 
> Since we want to be PRECISE and actually use our minds carefully, an offered statement is not a creed. It can become a creed but is not so at the offering. Think with your minds and not your emotions. Do they hope their statement will be adopted by those who have ecclesiastical authority so to do? Yes. Is it a creed as offered? They explicitly deny this. One may argue that they are confused but to impute motives to elders when the witness of their own hand denies their imputed intent would be chargeable in a Church court and I would assume that an elder would understand this.
Click to expand...


I figured an apology would be too much to ask for. I guess falsely accusing people of 9th commandment violations isn't itself a 9th commandment violation. Your accusation has been exposed for the falsity it is. Others who made the same accusation have graciously apologised. Follow their example.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Alexander,

I presume you are familiar with the WLC on the 9th Commandment but I will quote it for you:



> Q143: Which is the ninth commandment?
> A143: The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[1]
> 1. Exod. 20:16
> 
> Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
> A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;[10] a charitable esteem of our neighbors;[11] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[12] sorrowing for,[13] and covering of their infirmities;[14] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[15] defending their innocence;[16] a ready receiving of a good report,[17] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[18] concerning them; discouraging talebearers,[19] flatterers,[20] and slanderers;[21] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[22] keeping of lawful promises;[23] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[24]
> (1. Zech. 8:16 2. III John 1:12 3. Prov. 31:8-9 4. Psa. 15:2 5. II Chr. 19:9 6. I Sam. 19:4-5 7. Josh. 7:19 8. II Sam. 14:18-20 9. Lev. 19:15; Prov. 14:5, 25 10. II Cor. 1:17-18; Eph. 4:25 11. Heb. 6:9; I Cor. 13:7 12. Rom. 1:8; II John 1:4; III John 1:3-4 13. II Cor. 2:4; 12:21 14. Prov. 17:9; I Peter 4:8 15. I Cor. 1:4-5, 7; II Tim. 1:4-5 16. I Sam. 22:14 17. I Cor. 13:6-7 18. Psa. 15:3 19. Prov. 25:23 20. Prov. 26:24-25 21. Psa. 101:5 22. Prov. 22:1; John 8:49 23. Psa. 15:4 24. Phil. 4:8)
> 
> LC Q 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
> A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47]
> 
> (1. I Sam. 17:28; II Sam. 1:9-10, 15-16; 16:3 2. Lev. 19:15; Hab. 1:4 3. Prov. 6:16, 19; 19:5 4. Acts 6:13 5. Jer. 9:3, 5; Acts 24:2, 5; Psa. 3:1-4; 12:3-4 6. Prov. 17:15; I Kings 21:9-14 7. Isa. 5:23 8. Psa. 119:69; Luke 16:5-7; 19:8 9. Lev. 5:1; Acts 5:3, 8-9; II Tim. 4:6 10. I Kings 1:6; Lev. 19:17 11. Isa. 59:4 12. Prov. 29:11 13. I Sam. 22:9-10; Psa. 52:1 14. Psa. 56:5; John 2:19; Matt. 26:60-61 15. Gen. 3:5, 26:7, 9 16. Isa. 59:13 17. Lev. 19:11; Col. 3:9 18. Psa. 1:20 19. Psa. 15:3 20. James 4:11; Jer. 38:4 21. Lev. 19:16 22. Rom. 1:29-30 23. Gen. 21:9; Gal. 4:29 24. I Cor. 6:10 25. Mattt. 7:1 26. Acts 28:4 27. Gen. 38:24; Rom. 2:1 28. Neh. 6:6-8; Rom. 3:8; Psa. 69:10; I Sam. 1:13-15; II Sam. 10:3 29. Psa. 12:2-3 30. II Tim. 3: 31. Luke 18:9, 11; Rom. 12:16; I Cor. 4:6; Acts 12:22; Exod. 4:10-14 32. Job 4:6, 27:5-6 33. Matt. 7:3-5 34. Prov. 28:13; 30:20; Gen. 3:12-13; 4:9; Jer. 2:35; II Kings 5:25 35. Gen. 9:22; Prov. 25:9-10 36. Exod. 23:1 37. Prov. 29:12 38. Acts 7:56-57; Job 31:13-14 39. I Cor. 13:5; I Tim. 6:4 40. Num. 11:29; Matt. 21:15 41. Ezra 4:12-13 42. Jer. 48:27 43. Psa. 35:15-16, 21; Matt. 27:28-29 44. Jude 1:16; Acts 12:22 45. Rom. 1:31; II Tim. 3:3 46. I Sam. 2:24 47. II Sam. 13:12-13; Prov. 5:8-9; 6:33).



Now, I want you to read the FAQ: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/

Specifically the very first point: 



> What is The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology?
> 
> It is primarily a concise, 137-word statement on the person and work of Christ. The statement also includes twenty-five articles of affirmation and denial. Each article has Scripture proofs.



Note that they underline and use the word *statement* over an over. They offer it up as a statement. Some may hope that an ecclesiastical body may adopt it as a creedal or confessional statement (but we'll get to that point further in the FAQ). You may think them confused in their thought they can even offer a statement but they're schooled in Church history well enough to know that they have no authority to make creedal statements.

If this is not inferred from what they say then they make it crystal clear when they state:


> From the FAQ:
> 
> What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
> 
> Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.



Clearly, they don't believe they have any authority to "...issue a creed..." as you have charged them with.

Don't argue with me over your perceived injury.

Take the WLC on the 9th Commandment and go through it clause by clause and then compare your statement that they issued this as a creed to the Church and compare it to each clause.

I am content to let the Lord judge my words that I have written to you and I will not apologize for pointing out your untruthful statement. You have not promoted the good name of your neighbor.

I have absolutely no problem with those who disagree with me here on the propriety of Ligonier to even offer up a statement on Christology. You have read me interact and peaceably disagree with them. None of them have assigned motives to the men that you have.

Read what you wrote carefully and consider what the 9th Commandment requires of you.

What we have then is the clear statement of ordained ministers who state that they have no ecclesiasitical authority to do anything more than offer a statement that they hope will benefit the Church and we have a member in a Presbyterian Church accusing them, on the basis of no witnesses, that they are issuing a creed.


----------



## earl40

Semper Fidelis said:


> From the FAQ:
> 
> What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
> 
> Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.



Rich does our ecclesiastical body of the PCA have a responsibility to correct any content of the statement since RC is a pastor in good standing in our denomination? Or should we (I am speaking of the presbytery) simply leave it alone knowing it is simply a statement of a organization that is not accountable to any particular body?

I am asking this in all sincerity.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Semper Fidelis said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the Explanatory Essay on The LIGONIER STATEMENT on CHRISTOLOGY:
> 
> Paragraph labeled FOR WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION
> 
> 
> 
> Ligonier humbly offers this statement for the church. From the early centuries, Christians have used creeds in the church’s liturgy. It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point? Is it offered as a creed or a statement?
> 
> 
> Since we want to be PRECISE and actually use our minds carefully, an offered statement is not a creed. It can become a creed but is not so at the offering. Think with your minds and not your emotions. Do they hope their statement will be adopted by those who have ecclesiastical authority so to do? Yes. Is it a creed as offered? They explicitly deny this. One may argue that they are confused but to impute motives to elders when the witness of their own hand denies their imputed intent would be chargeable in a Church court and I would assume that an elder would understand this.
Click to expand...


In the quote Brett gave it explicitly says, "It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose" as the creeds of the early church in the worship of the people of God. 

Now whether or not we should be using creeds in worship at all is a different question, but it seems obvious that is how Ligonier wanted it to be used.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> In the quote Brett gave it explicitly says, "It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose" as the creeds of the early church in the worship of the people of God.
> 
> Now whether or not we should be using creeds in worship at all is a different question, but it seems obvious that is how Ligonier wanted it to be used.



Ben,

Read the whole FAQ and think through this more carefully:



> From the FAQ:
> 
> What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
> 
> Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.



They are NOT issuing a creed. I agree that some may desire that the end result could be that some Churches might use it as such but it is NOT issued as a creed in the offering.

Even you believe it is not a creed. Are you disagreeing with them that they actually have the authority to issue a creed?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

earl40 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the FAQ:
> 
> What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
> 
> Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich does our ecclesiastical body of the PCA have a responsibility to correct any content of the statement since RC is a pastor in good standing in our denomination? Or should we (I am speaking of the presbytery) simply leave it alone knowing it is simply a statement of a organization that is not accountable to any particular body?
> 
> I am asking this in all sincerity.
Click to expand...


His ministerial credentials are held in a Presbytery so if there are any unorthodox elements then "Yes". Keep in mind that Ligonier has acknowledged some of the criticism about some of the phrasing.

I have to run. I'll pick up on Scott's question about Whitefield shortly because it's an interesing one.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I understand we need to be careful on the expressed intent. But getting back to the OP: The enterprise leaves a bad taste given the result that it has already caused division, misunderstanding, and hard feelings. Now, I don't know everyone well enough to clear any side; there are strong personalities involved; but it just has stink on it now whomever is at or more at fault.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Semper Fidelis,

I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.

So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that _would_ be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.

Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

alexandermsmith said:


> Semper Fidelis,
> 
> I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.
> 
> So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that _would_ be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.
> 
> Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.



Not to presume to speak for Rich, but I think you are missing the distinction he is making here. A creed is issued by an ecclesiastical authority and is binding on the churches in light of that authority. The statement that Ligonier made is merely being offered up to the churches and can only become binding, and thus a creed, upon acceptance by churches in whom ecclesiastical authority rests.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

alexandermsmith said:


> Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.


LOL.

Angry? No. As I stated my conscience i clear on this point. I have demonstrated their explicit statement that they do not even believe they have the authority to issue a creed.

You don't think they have the authority to issue a creed and they don't so, clearly, neither side thinks they issued a creed.

You state that I'm misinterpreting them. Can you please provide a way to interpret this statement, made by Presbyterian ministers, to even infer that they believe they are _issuing a creed_. Do they state they have the authority to do so?



> What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
> 
> Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.



Again, let's be clear on what you stated:



> This document *has been issued as a creed* with the purpose of being used as a creed.



Do you believe they have the authority to _issue a creed_?

Do they believe they have the authority to _issue a creed_?

Why is this important to me? Because I hate party spirits and the way that people get carried away by them. It is sinful behavior. I am less interested in defending Ligonier and more interested in what the actual truth of the matter is on this point.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Bill The Baptist said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis,
> 
> I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.
> 
> So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that _would_ be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.
> 
> Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to presume to speak for Rich, but I think you are missing the distinction he is making here. A creed is issued by an ecclesiastical authority and is binding on the churches in light of that authority. The statement that Ligonier made is merely being offered up to the churches and can only become binding, and thus a creed, upon acceptance by churches in whom ecclesiastical authority rests.
Click to expand...


Bill,

I see your point. To clarify: I don't think Ligonier themselves think they are on a par with the Westminster Assembly or one of the Ecumenical Councils. But I would disagree with you that a document only becomes a creed when it is issued by an authorised ecclesiastical authority. A creed is a specific type of document that summarises the faith in a list of articles. Just as a catechism is a document which summarises the faith in a question and answer format and so on. A catechism is a catechism whether it's officially adopted or officially delivered or not; a creed the same. I think, really, in all due respect to yourself, it becomes semantics to say that a document is only a creed when delivered by an authorised body. This document has been drawn up like a creed; it's been delivered in reference to previous creeds; and it's delivered with the hope it will function as those creeds. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Personally, I see this as more another example of the unthinking, ahistorical spirit alive in the church today: it's 2016, time for another statement on Christology. I'm not saying the motivation behind the production of this specific document is nefarious, or that Ligonier is trying to seize control of the Protestant faith. What it is is muddled thinking; ecclesiastically unsound, arising from ecclesiastical ignorance; and another manifestation of a larger desire today to keep producing new confessions, which I _do_ think is suspicious and dangerous.

What I have reacted to in this discussion is Semper Fidelis' anger and resentment towards people criticising Ligonier for this action. I entered this discussion because from what he was saying, I thought Semper Fidelis believed they _did_ have the authority to issue creeds. To discover, as it would appear, that he doesn't believe this I'm left confused as to what his point actually is. As I say, I don't think they did it maliciously but I do think it's unwarranted and damaging and, yes, presumptuous. And the fact is, they themselves hope this document will be taken up by the church to be used as the older creeds have been. I just don't understand why Semper Fidelis refuses to take them at their word and feels the need to use doublespeak to defend Ligonier.

I appreciate your reasoned, conciliatory tone and I hope you are not offended by my response. And I would just wish others could be as civil.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

alexandermsmith said:


> What I have reacted to in this discussion is Semper Fidelis' anger and resentment towards people criticising Ligonier for this action. I entered this discussion because from what he was saying, I thought Semper Fidelis believed they did have the authority to issue creeds. To discover, as it would appear, that he doesn't believe this I'm left confused as to what his point actually is. As I say, I don't think they did it maliciously but I do think it's unwarranted and damaging and, yes, presumptuous. And the fact is, they themselves hope this document will be taken up by the church to be used as the older creeds have been. I just don't understand why Semper Fidelis refuses to take them at their word and feels the need to use doublespeak to defend Ligonier.



Alexander,

I will say this one more time and then I'm going to start moderating you for being churlish.

I have not made any "angry" statements. I have made factual statements. I am, in fact, taking the ministers at Ligonier "...at their word..." when they say that they offer it as a statement in the hopes that it might serve the Church. I think I've been pretty plain throughout this thread in noting the difference between statements and creeds. It was my very first point. I actually had not even read their FAQ when I noted that they had even named it a statement on Christology and compared it to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

As I've also noted the ecclesiasitical methodology for any text to become an _adopted_ Confession or catechism is for it to be in some sort of draft that is then adopted by the court with the ecclesiastical authority to do so. Speaking as a fool, I've been an Elder for several years now and have served in both Presbytery and General Assembly committees for almost all those years. I've composed Overtures that have flowed through the process of the courts. At their drafting by me they are not public statements. They are brought to the Session and then the Presbytery and up to GA and, at each stage, men can strike or amend language. Once they are adopted by the Church they take on that status.

If you follow anything Chad Van Dixhorn has written or spoken about, this was the process that the Westminister Assembly used to formulate the Confession and Catechisms - motions, substitutes, amendments, etc. The WLC and the WSC were not catechisms of the Church in their first draft. Wording was proposed by, let's say, a single minister and then it would undergo some revision. That minister was not "issuing a catechism" then he wrote something in that form but his work (and the work of the committee) contributed to what became the final form. This is how ecclesiastical courts operate.

As I said before, the Teaching Fellows at Ligonier are mostly Presbyterian ministers. Among them are Sinclair Ferguson and Derek Thomas. I don't know the process they used to compose this statement but I know that they are also not "fly by the seat of their pants" kind of men. They are my superiors both in terms of age and ability and I will assume the best of them.

They know full well the process I just described and know full well that if their statement was ever to be _adopted_ by a Church that it would have to go through the process I just described. If this ever went through the courts of the PCA (highly doubtful), what was offered would merely be a "first draft". That statement would be subject to the Church's authority to settle on the language it's courts decided upon and the final form would be constitutional and not first draft. The mere fact that a statement is in a certain form does not make it creedal or confessional. One might say that a statement is in the _form_ of a catechism or creed but that is different from saying that a statement _is_ a catechism or creed of a Church.

Is this word games?

No. We're Presbyterians. Before I was licensed to preach, I was very careful to correct people who stated that I had preached a sermon. Prior to my licensure, I had no authority and I _exhorted_. It is the business of the Church to license or ordain and so I recognized that my action (though in the form of preaching) was not preaching because I only had the _authority_ to exhort.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Many of the puritans wrote catechisms (some published and some not at the time) most of which did not become adopted by the church. Some were looked to as models by those who would eventually produce the shorter and larger catechisms of the Westminster Assembly.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

alexandermsmith said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis,
> 
> I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.
> 
> So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that _would_ be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.
> 
> Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to presume to speak for Rich, but I think you are missing the distinction he is making here. A creed is issued by an ecclesiastical authority and is binding on the churches in light of that authority. The statement that Ligonier made is merely being offered up to the churches and can only become binding, and thus a creed, upon acceptance by churches in whom ecclesiastical authority rests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I see your point. To clarify: I don't think Ligonier themselves think they are on a par with the Westminster Assembly or one of the Ecumenical Councils. But I would disagree with you that a document only becomes a creed when it is issued by an authorised ecclesiastical authority. A creed is a specific type of document that summarises the faith in a list of articles. Just as a catechism is a document which summarises the faith in a question and answer format and so on. A catechism is a catechism whether it's officially adopted or officially delivered or not; a creed the same. I think, really, in all due respect to yourself, it becomes semantics to say that a document is only a creed when delivered by an authorised body. This document has been drawn up like a creed; it's been delivered in reference to previous creeds; and it's delivered with the hope it will function as those creeds. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
> 
> Personally, I see this as more another example of the unthinking, ahistorical spirit alive in the church today: it's 2016, time for another statement on Christology. I'm not saying the motivation behind the production of this specific document is nefarious, or that Ligonier is trying to seize control of the Protestant faith. What it is is muddled thinking; ecclesiastically unsound, arising from ecclesiastical ignorance; and another manifestation of a larger desire today to keep producing new confessions, which I _do_ think is suspicious and dangerous.
> 
> What I have reacted to in this discussion is Semper Fidelis' anger and resentment towards people criticising Ligonier for this action. I entered this discussion because from what he was saying, I thought Semper Fidelis believed they _did_ have the authority to issue creeds. To discover, as it would appear, that he doesn't believe this I'm left confused as to what his point actually is. As I say, I don't think they did it maliciously but I do think it's unwarranted and damaging and, yes, presumptuous. And the fact is, they themselves hope this document will be taken up by the church to be used as the older creeds have been. I just don't understand why Semper Fidelis refuses to take them at their word and feels the need to use doublespeak to defend Ligonier.
> 
> I appreciate your reasoned, conciliatory tone and I hope you are not offended by my response. And I would just wish others could be as civil.
Click to expand...


Alexander,

I have learned many things during the past five years of participating on this board, and one of the things I have learned is that Rich is very passionate and will argue vigorously for what he believes in. It is easy to be offended by this, as I once was, but if you will take a step back and consider what he is saying, you will find that you can learn a great deal from him. That does not mean that you must always agree with him, but you should not assume that he is attacking you merely because he is forceful and passionate.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Bill The Baptist said:


> Alexander,
> 
> I have learned many things during the past five years of participating on this board, and one of the things I have learned is that Rich is very passionate and will argue vigorously for what he believes in. It is easy to be offended by this, as I once was, but if you will take a step back and consider what he is saying, you will find that you can learn a great deal from him. That does not mean that you must always agree with him, but you should not assume that he is attacking you merely because he is forceful and passionate.



I'm barred from defending myself so what can I say.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

{sigh}

I don't know if it's my American English. If you wish to give better explanation to your comments then do so.

However, refrain from the ad hominem attacks repeatedly calling others' "angry" or "unbecoming" because they are explaining themselves and you disagree with their explanations. Stop trying to discern the motivations of men *underneath* what they actually write. 

I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get you to see that your charge against the ministers at Ligonier is not borne out even by the language of the initial summary where they "hope" that it will be used by the Church. It is a possible inference of their words but then you have to actually read the FAQ where they explicitly state that they understand they are not the Church. They literally bend over backwards to try to allay concerns that they think they have the authority to issue creeds.

If you take the time to read the FAQ (and remember there are ministers in good standing behind these answers) then it might cause you be more circumspect in your criticism. It might not but do try to remember that these are men who are attacked repeatedly and try to infer what it might be like to receive barbs from people who presume to know their motives and will not even acknowledge when they admit they might need to change their Statement.

Mark Jones was heartened by Ligonier's response to its critics. Perhaps we can be as well.

Having run this board now for over a decade I can tell you that it's no fun when people write blogs about you or attack you. It's hard not to respond. Yes, as Bill noted, I'm passionate (intense) about things. I'm even a first-class jerk sometimes. I've read that Calvin had a volcanic temper that he was ashamed of but that passion was used well of God (as I hope he sometimes uses my own).


----------



## MW

Rather than blame each other for 9th commandment violations you could look at it as a genuine difference of interpretation and explore why you are interpreting it differently. It appears Rich is concerned for the reputation of the ministers behind the statement while Alexander is concerned for the integrity of the church against parachurch impositions. That seems to suggest something objective which could be profitably discussed.

And now having meddled in other men's matters I suppose I can expect to have my face ripped off.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Isn't there some way of putting "ripping your face off" in some Aussie abbreviated way that ends in "ie"?

I'm content that I made my point. I'm not looking to convict Alexander of a violation but merely to get him to think through the issue. I do not consider the concerns about authority to be trivial even if I disagree with the idea that there was some extraordinarily overstep of bounds in this case given their stated aims.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> Isn't there some way of putting "ripping your face off" in some Aussie abbreviated way that ends in "ie"?



Like chuckin' a sickie or firin' up the barbie? There doesn't appear to be any. It's obviously an un-Australian thing to do.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I have fond memories of vegemite and bickies at your home in 2007.


----------



## ZackF

Semper Fidelis said:


> I have fond memories of vegemite and bickies at your home in 2007.



This is the first I've ever read "vegemite" and "fond memories" in the same sentence.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> I have fond memories of vegemite and bickies at your home in 2007.



Time flies. I hope it's not too long before we do it again.


----------

