blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
As I continue reading through Witsius' Economy of the Covenants, I'm finding it interesting, and maybe even refreshing, to think about the scriptures from his perspective. It hit me recently what it was that seemed different about how he seems to come to conclusions vs the way I do (and perhaps other baptists). I just wanted to get a feel for how accurate my observation is and how much of CT hinges on it.
Generally, for me its always been important to allow the Bible to speak for itself. If the scripture was silent about an issue, I proceeded very cautiously. The written words that God inspired in the Bible tell me what I should and shouldn't believe about any given topic.
Witsius I'm sure would agree with that, but his focus on the words of scripture seems a little different. Many of the ideas I've read so far seem to be connected to what the Bible says about God's character or one of his attributes, which then seems to drive the doctrine. Its like, "The Bible says this about this attribute of God, therefore...".
How much of CT is derived by looking at God's character/attributes, as opposed to focusing on verses that specifically state a doctrine?
Generally, for me its always been important to allow the Bible to speak for itself. If the scripture was silent about an issue, I proceeded very cautiously. The written words that God inspired in the Bible tell me what I should and shouldn't believe about any given topic.
Witsius I'm sure would agree with that, but his focus on the words of scripture seems a little different. Many of the ideas I've read so far seem to be connected to what the Bible says about God's character or one of his attributes, which then seems to drive the doctrine. Its like, "The Bible says this about this attribute of God, therefore...".
How much of CT is derived by looking at God's character/attributes, as opposed to focusing on verses that specifically state a doctrine?