Do you view your respective confession as functionally infallible?

[fredtgreco]

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

Q & A 7

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

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


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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

Exactly. That's what the confession says.

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

Q & A 7

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

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


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

This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 5.3 "they being the root of all mankind." It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of Adam's first sin" (emphases added).

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

That I can agree with.

 

[KMK]

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

May I ask what one you refer to Ken?

 

[KMK]

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

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

May I ask what one you refer to Ken?

1689

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

Q & A 7

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

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


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

This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 5.3 "they being the root of all mankind." It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of Adam's first sin" (emphases added).

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

Q & A 7

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

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


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

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

 

[KMK]

This is a good point. The Westminster Standards have similar language in WCF 5.3 "they being the root of all mankind." It also could appear that WLC 26 "Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity" is inconsistent with WLC 25 "guilt of Adam's first sin" (emphases added).

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

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

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

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

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

and I will contribute to its offtopicness...

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

Just thinking off the top of my head.

 

[KMK]

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

and I will contribute to its offtopicness...

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

Just thinking off the top of my head.

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

Q & A 7

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

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


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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

Please feel free to call me Matthew.

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

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

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

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

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

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

VII:I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. (Original Sin)

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. (Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed (Imputation: Turn to Chapter XI); and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. (Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII)

VI. Every sin, both original (Imputed: Turn to Chapter XI) and actual (Corruption: Turn to Chapter XIII), being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal and eternal.

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ken,

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

Rev. Winzer,

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Fred,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[etexas]

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

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


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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

Please feel free to call me Matthew.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BC states:

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


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

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

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