If We Should Not Use Instruments: Then Why Does 95% of the Church Use Them?

[Bygracealone]

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. In a discussion with the Mormon, what is required is common definitions of biblical words, and those common definitions are utterly essential, if the two of you want to discuss the same subject. In a discussion between unaccompanied sung praise and accompanied sung praise advocates, the debate is over the extent of what is confessionally mandated. No informed student of the matter can doubt that the writers of all the Confessions believed and practiced unaccompanied psalmnody and the confessions were written against that background which the writers almost certainly presumed.

But the confessions and standards do not explicitly mandate the unaccompanied method; they only explictly mandate sung praise. Even though their authors believed and practiced USP, the fact that they did not manadate their practice in the Confessions leaves the matter up for debate, once the difference is raised. While accompanied sung praise may be a non-confessioinally mandated innovation in Reformed Churches, it is not, by definition, contrary to the confessions. It will only be anti-confessional if the confessions are amended to specifically exclude the practice.

An illustration may serve to make the point. Am I right in thinking that some US territories that became states faced a choice between becoming slave or free, because the US federal constitution did not prohibit slavery in the territories? And am I right in thinking that those states that did choose to become slave did not have their stance rendered illegal until and a civil war and subsequent amendement to the constitution prohibited slavery nationwide?

I don't think that just because they didn't mandate it that it means it's open for debate. It was the normal practice of the Churches back then, so they had no need to mandate the Church to do what it was already practicing. I would guess that they never thought the Church would go in the directions she has gone concerning worship.

I think the better analogy would be something along the lines of the subject of abortion. Abortion wasn't something that the Church was faced with during the 1600's; it wasn't even on the radar screen. But just because the confession doesn't provide a mandate on the subject doesn't mean it's open for debate. There were a number of things that were assumed by the divines at the time that they didn't feel the need to address and a number of things they couldn't possibly have known would need to be addressed. That's one of the benefits of having a Testimony alongside our WCF in the RPCNA...

 

[JohnV]

So, if you're in a discussion with a Mormon about what salvation is and he says that Jesus saves him from his sins then common definitions are immaterial?

You state that you are sticking with what the Confessions state. How do I know you are defining terms the same way I am or do definitions not matter in the least? Is it sufficient for you to actually demonstrate that you and I are using the same definitions or do I just need to trust that JohnV's understanding of the Scriptures and the Confessions is normative?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Rich. Where did this come from? I don't think you are a Mormon, so I don't get what your point is. But I'll give it a try.

I think you're asking me how you know that I'm believing the same things that the writers of the Confessions wrote. I don't know how else you'd be wondering about my understanding of the Confessions. Well, I'm taking the plain meaning.

What I like to do sometimes is write out the confession article or articles in full. That way I'm thinking about each and every word. And while I'm writing I'll kind of keep an eye on other articles along with the ones I have already written out a number of times. That way I'm always comparing. It all has to make sense together, not just individually.

So if my understanding falls short of acceptable faith it is up to my elders to inform and instruct me. Because I am accepted in my church and my faith is in good standing you also have to accept it. Unless you have something against my church.

You will find out about my definitions of the terms I borrow from the confessions in the way that I use them. The writers of the Confessions, all of our confessions, took pains to keep as much as possible to the terms the Bible used, and yet address those issues which the Church has had to address over the centuries. It takes work to understand them and use them rightly.

If I'm using the terms of the WCF wrongly then you will find it out in the way I work out my understanding on the issue in question. Because truth is not afraid of truth, you will soon find out whether I am honest to the faith or not. So if I'm abusing the Confession I claim to be subscribed to in my faith, then it must be shown by that Confession that I err, not by people's opinions. Even a whole collection of people may still be wrong, but the Confessions have stood the test of time and are a trustworthy testimony of the Church.

Lastly, the first sentence of paragraph v of chapter I of the WCF speaks clearly how we are to regard this and every Church confession: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church (i.e., the Confessional Standards) to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture." Heb. 4 and 10 speak of keeping firm in our confession, which is exactly what the Church has been doing by keeping a record of that confession throughout the centuries, especially when controversies arose.

So if I'm untrue to the Confessions I'm really being untrue to the Word of God, not just the Confessions. And again, my elders have found no fault in my doctrine. I have been on this Board for five years, and no one has found fault with my doctrine. So I think this speaks for itself as to whether I understand the WCF's terms.

If I get into a discussion with a Mormon (and I have once) and he claims forgiveness in Jesus' name, I will first try to understand what he means by that. I already know that he understands some things wrongly; I have to pinpoint where his errors are. If I understand thing rightly and tell him of Jesus' atonement rightly then I am only doing what the Holy Spirit bids me do. If I'm telling him my own gospel, then I cannot expect the Spirit's help at all. So again, you will know me by my fruit.

 

[MW]

John 18:33-37, it seemed a simple matter of saying yes or no to the question whether Jesus was king of the Jews, but our Lord would not affirm His kingship until it was distinguished from the carnal notions attached to it by the Jews.

 

[JohnV]

John 18:33-37, it seemed a simple matter of saying yes or no to the question whether Jesus was king of the Jews, but our Lord would not affirm His kingship until it was distinguished from the carnal notions attached to it by the Jews.

Precisely, Matthew. Thank you.

 

[MW]

John 18:33-37, it seemed a simple matter of saying yes or no to the question whether Jesus was king of the Jews, but our Lord would not affirm His kingship until it was distinguished from the carnal notions attached to it by the Jews.

Precisely, Matthew. Thank you.

So does that mean you can agree with Chris' earlier statement to the effect that we must clarify what the Standards intended by the words they employed?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, if you're in a discussion with a Mormon about what salvation is and he says that Jesus saves him from his sins then common definitions are immaterial?

You state that you are sticking with what the Confessions state. How do I know you are defining terms the same way I am or do definitions not matter in the least? Is it sufficient for you to actually demonstrate that you and I are using the same definitions or do I just need to trust that JohnV's understanding of the Scriptures and the Confessions is normative?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Rich. Where did this come from? I don't think you are a Mormon, so I don't get what your point is. But I'll give it a try.

I think you're asking me how you know that I'm believing the same things that the writers of the Confessions wrote. I don't know how else you'd be wondering about my understanding of the Confessions. Well, I'm taking the plain meaning.

What I like to do sometimes is write out the confession article or articles in full. That way I'm thinking about each and every word. And while I'm writing I'll kind of keep an eye on other articles along with the ones I have already written out a number of times. That way I'm always comparing. It all has to make sense together, not just individually.

So if my understanding falls short of acceptable faith it is up to my elders to inform and instruct me. Because I am accepted in my church and my faith is in good standing you also have to accept it. Unless you have something against my church.

You will find out about my definitions of the terms I borrow from the confessions in the way that I use them. The writers of the Confessions, all of our confessions, took pains to keep as much as possible to the terms the Bible used, and yet address those issues which the Church has had to address over the centuries. It takes work to understand them and use them rightly.

If I'm using the terms of the WCF wrongly then you will find it out in the way I work out my understanding on the issue in question. Because truth is not afraid of truth, you will soon find out whether I am honest to the faith or not. So if I'm abusing the Confession I claim to be subscribed to in my faith, then it must be shown by that Confession that I err, not by people's opinions. Even a whole collection of people may still be wrong, but the Confessions have stood the test of time and are a trustworthy testimony of the Church.

Lastly, the first sentence of paragraph v of chapter I of the WCF speaks clearly how we are to regard this and every Church confession: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church (i.e., the Confessional Standards) to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture." Heb. 4 and 10 speak of keeping firm in our confession, which is exactly what the Church has been doing by keeping a record of that confession throughout the centuries, especially when controversies arose.

So if I'm untrue to the Confessions I'm really being untrue to the Word of God, not just the Confessions. And again, my elders have found no fault in my doctrine. I have been on this Board for five years, and no one has found fault with my doctrine. So I think this speaks for itself as to whether I understand the WCF's terms.

If I get into a discussion with a Mormon (and I have once) and he claims forgiveness in Jesus' name, I will first try to understand what he means by that. I already know that he understands some things wrongly; I have to pinpoint where his errors are. If I understand thing rightly and tell him of Jesus' atonement rightly then I am only doing what the Holy Spirit bids me do. If I'm telling him my own gospel, then I cannot expect the Spirit's help at all. So again, you will know me by my fruit.

John 18:33-37, it seemed a simple matter of saying yes or no to the question whether Jesus was king of the Jews, but our Lord would not affirm His kingship until it was distinguished from the carnal notions attached to it by the Jews.

Precisely, Matthew. Thank you.

So does that mean you can agree with Chris' earlier statement to the effect that we must clarify what the Standards intended by the words they employed?

Exactly.

John,

I don't know what the dissonance is here in your thinking that you criticize Chris' statement on the one hand stating this:

This is unacceptable to me. I would hope that no church goes about things this way.

I even clarified Chris' comment to try and make it clearer for you that, in effect, all Chris was stating was that we should first make sure we're using the same language and, upon that basis, engage in the discussion of how the Confessions comport to the Word of God.

You then proceed to disagree(?) with this so I provided an example of why defining our terms is important and you answered by affirming what Chris stated but in your own terms.

For good measure, Matthew provided an example and your answer is: "Precisely, Matthew...."

I don't know why it is you insist on being so enigmatic.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

[FONT=&quot]John,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rich and Matthew have brought the matter to a very simple point I think (thank you both). I think I can say that Presbyterian churches, at least in recent memory, have a history of dealing with studying original intent and have been able to handle their confessions, as constitutional and human documents while preserving the primacy and authority of the Word of God, just fine. See the PCA and OPC reports on Creation and the OPC Justification paper. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]One of the authors of the OPC Justification report is Alan Strange, who was moderator of the recent 2008 General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He explains the importance of original intent and adopting intent in constitutional Presbyterianism and how we determine them when controversies arise. I’m giving a preview from the forthcoming CPJ 4.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alan Strange, “The Affirmation of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly of Divines,” The Confessional Presbyterian 4 (2008 forthcoming) 205-206.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]… It is a commonplace in interpreting and applying constitutional law—whether the Westminster Confession as part of the constitution of the Presbyterian Church or the U.S. Constitution as part of American jurisprudence—that the interpretive process involves attention to the original intent of the bodies that drafted and adopted the particular laws at issue as well as the words themselves contained in the laws. As noted in the OPC Report of the Committee on Creation Views: “In ecclesiastical law, as in all constitutional law, judicatories that interpret the constitution should pay the most careful attention to the words of the constitution itself. The words drafted and adopted by the framers serve as the form of unity and bind the church together in its doctrine. The interpretation that the church as a whole has of the constitution has come to be referred to by the technical term animus imponentis (which term is more fully defined below). The animus of the church, however, is shaped not only by the words of the constitution itself but also by the church studying and giving heed to what the original intent of those who framed the confession or its amendments was. Original intent, like animus imponentis, is also a technical term and refers to what the framers of a document, whether it is a civil or ecclesiastical constitution, had in mind when they wrote and adopted the constitution.”[[FONT=&quot]50]

[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In short, original intent means what the body that drafted the constitutional document(s) in question meant in adopting the particular language that it did. This is the term to be preferred over authorial intent since most constitutional documents are drafted and adopted by deliberative assemblies of some sort. The Westminster Assembly of Divines was certainly a deliberative body. The question then becomes, “How is the original intent of the Westminster Divines on any given issue to be ascertained?” Of course, in reading the Confession and Catechisms, a primary emphasis must always be placed on the words themselves: what do these particular words mean? But the words are not to be read out of context and the concern for original intent always involves a concern that whatever reading is given to any particular part of the Confession or Catechisms should be a reading in keeping with the intention of those who wrote the words in the first place. There are a number of ways that one might go about seeking to ascertain the original intent of the members of the Westminster Assembly: through writings of the Divines (sermons, treatises, letters, etc.),[[FONT=&quot]51][/FONT] through the minutes of the Assembly, through journals (like Lightfoot’s), and through observations of contemporaries about the Assembly’s work. Original intent and a reading of the words as to their prima facie meaning is never opposed to one another in sound constitutional interpretation. Rather, original intent simply helps provide the proper Sitz-im-Leben in which to read the text in a fashion that is not de-contextualized but faithful to the meaning of those who wrote and adopted it.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Original intent, however, is not the only matter of concern in constitutional interpretation: animus imponentis is also at issue. Given the importance of animus imponentis as a whole for ecclesiastical law, an appendix to this essay sets forth and treats the concept more fully. Perhaps it will suffice for now to note that animus imponentis (meaning, “the intention of the imposing body”) means that not only the original intent of the framers of the Westminster Assembly (or of the framers of any subsequent amendments) is to be considered in our ecclesiastical assemblies, but also the way in which those assemblies themselves understood the constitution. This is particularly relevant when dealing with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms since they were not the product of an ecclesiastical judicatory but were instead the product of a body that was advisory to the English Parliament. As such, the intention of the Scottish Church in adopting the Westminster Standards (in 1645–1648)[[FONT=&quot]52][/FONT] is, for that church, as important (if not more so) than the intention of the Westminster Divines. Similarly, then, the animus imponentis is significant for the Presbyterian Church in the colonies when it passed the Adopting Act of 1729 or when the OPC adopted the form of the Westminster Standards that it did at the Second GA of the OPC in November 1936. Some might even regard such adopting acts by ecclesiastical judicatories as savoring more of an original intent situation than an animus imponentis one. Regardless of which is correct, the point remains that in confessional hermeneutics significant consideration must be given to acts of church judicatories subsequent to the adoption of the Westminster Standards. [/FONT]
----------------
[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]50.[/FONT] Minutes of the Seventy-First General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Willow Grove, Pa.: OPC, 2004) 257–258.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]51.[/FONT] See for instance David Hall’s analysis why one work not by the Assembly may serve as commentary on the Assembly’s intent. David W. Hall, “The Original Intent of Westminster,” in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici: or The Divine Right of Church Government originally asserted by the Ministers of Sion College, London, December 1646 (Dallas, Tex.: Naphtali Press, 1995) x–xxxviii.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]52.[/FONT] McKay, [W.D.J. McKay, “Scotland and the Westminster Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, v. 1 (Scotland: Mentor, 2003)] 240–241, notes that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland found the Confession to be “most agreeable to the Word of God, and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk.” The Scottish General Assembly did make two qualifications (having to do with ecclesiastical officers and assemblies and the power of civil magistrates to call such), the point here being that the Confession bore authority in the Scottish church only when and as that church adopted it as her confession. So too with the American Church in 1729 and 1788/89 (at the first GA) and following, as particular Presbyterian denominations had occasion to come into being (for which, see D.G. Hart and John R. Muether, Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007]).[/FONT]
​

 

[JohnV]

[

So does that mean you can agree with Chris' earlier statement to the effect that we must clarify what the Standards intended by the words they employed?

Exactly.

John,

I don't know what the dissonance is here in your thinking that you criticize Chris' statement on the one hand stating this:

This is unacceptable to me. I would hope that no church goes about things this way.

I even clarified Chris' comment to try and make it clearer for you that, in effect, all Chris was stating was that we should first make sure we're using the same language and, upon that basis, engage in the discussion of how the Confessions comport to the Word of God.

You then proceed to disagree(?) with this so I provided an example of why defining our terms is important and you answered by affirming what Chris stated but in your own terms.

For good measure, Matthew provided an example and your answer is: "Precisely, Matthew...."

I don't know why it is you insist on being so enigmatic.

OK, Rich, now I get ya. I'll go back and state what it is I disagree with, and why I said what I did.

Right now my time is short, and I want to read Chris' response yet too. This whay I'll have time to ponder it while I'm out. I'll be back in about six or seven hours (maybe more).

 

[JohnV]

Here is Chris' original comment:

For instance, the whole case of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ; is that a doctrine the church is to uphold or not? It has been challenged that the Westminster Standards leave that open. To answer that the standards have to be studied, again as outlined. Depending on the answer or at least a majority consensus on an answer, then challenges may be made or changes to secondary standards proposed based upon appeals to the primary standard, the word of God.

to which I answered:

This is unacceptable to me. I would hope that no church goes about things this way.

If I misunderstood you, Chris, then please forgive me. What I understood by this was that the method of consulting men's opinions to determine what they meant in the Confessions, and therefore imposing the conclusion drawn from that study upon the Confession, is how some matters of controversies are to be resolved. Then, once this has been determined, we are free to interpret the Bible accordingly. If this is not what you meant, then I repent of what I said.

This was the question I faced: Does the Confession allow someone to preach Presuppositionalism? A simple yes or no question. It doesn't address the right or wrong of Presuppositionalism; it only addresses the question of whether preaching it is to be approved or not. And the answer, from the Confessions, is clearly, "No!" There is no Confessional support for a "yes", while there is a clear statement opposed.

But I was the only one to say so. If you recall, Chris, I ordered a book from you: Jus Divinum. It was mostly for the purpose of seeking "original intent". I'm not opposed to searching that out at all. I've done it myself. What I am saying, though, and let me repeat it, you may not build anything upon it. And by that I mean that the only source for Bible teaching is the Bible itself, nothing else. Even good and necessary consequence is a result from the Bible, where the Bible leaves no other choice even though it does not expressly state it. But as to matters of teaching and worship, all that is needed is expressly stated, so that even the uneducated may come to see it through ordinary means.

So what I said above, hoping no church would follow this course, I said assuming that the following course was being taken:

determining a teaching from "original intent" because neither the Bible nor the Confesssions clearly state it;

taking this result as a presupposition to reading the Bible and the Confessions; and then

assuming that the Bible and therefore the Confessions teach it, even though neither speaks clearly of it.

Again, if this is not what you meant, then I am truly sorry. I take it back and repent of my error.


Now it is interesting that it is the Belgic Confession, not the Westminster Confession, that puts that RPW-defining verse in the context of worship. You find Deut. 12: 32 quoted in article vii of the BC, in the context of the sufficiency of Scripture (same as the WCF) but after it also makes a clear statement about the "whole manner of worship which God requires". Where does the WCF first refer to that text? In chapter I, on the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture.

So obviously the WCF and the BC see this RPW as applied firstly to the preaching and teaching of the Word. So clearly the RPW applies first to those who preach Presuppositionalism, Reconstructionism, Federal Vision, the Framework Hypothesis, etc. The Bible never commands anyone to teach these things. Personal conscience is no licence to declare something as Biblical.

Now there are those on this Board who disagree with EP, saying that it is left to personal liberty of conscience. Thought I would agree in part, it is certainly not the end of the matter. For it also falls within the province of each ruling body of the church to make a discretionery ruling on the matter, thereby binding the church under that ruling. And in our day church are well within their rights to do so. If EP or NI had been argued for in that way I should agree, even though I personally am not convicted that way. The point is not EP itself, nor NI itself, but the very thing which has infiltrated the church many times before, namely that these things have been misused, and even become a source of idolatry. Whether I am on your side matters very little; but you would be pleased to find that now most of those forefathers that have been so amply quoted now also agree. That was their "original intent", to escape idolatry and abuse.

Let me quote from the song book of a psalm-singing church:

"The word "praise" in the title (of the book jv) reminds us of the exhortation in the letter to the Hebrews: "...let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge His name." (13:15) Because of the grace and faithfulness of the LORD, the worship service is a meeting of Him with the people of His covenant. In response to His Word we offer up our sacrifices of praise in psalms and hymns."

Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like WCF XXI, v doesn't it?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

What I understood by this was that the method of consulting men's opinions to determine what they meant in the Confessions, and therefore imposing the conclusion drawn from that study upon the Confession, is how some matters of controversies are to be resolved. Then, once this has been determined, we are free to interpret the Bible accordingly. If this is not what you meant, then I repent of what I said.

There is no imposition; only clarity because some have controverted the divines' words or sought for clarity on some question, such as what did they mean by "day" in chapter 3 on creation, or more complexly, did they deny the IOAC was important to affirm, and did they affirm it actually. After investigating such questions, a church, which has every right to interpret its constitution, can make decisions what to do about the particular question.

So what I said above, hoping no church would follow this course, I said assuming that the following course was being taken:

determining a teaching from "original intent" because neither the Bible nor the Confesssions clearly state it;

NO. If the bible doesn't teach it clearly, it has no place in a church standard; and if it is not addressed in a standard, there's no reason to investigate intent. Again, church courts have a duty and responsibility to ensure that “the words" of the standards to which they bind church officers are not taken or "read out of context and the concern for original intent always involves a concern that whatever reading is given to any particular part of the Confession or Catechisms should be a reading in keeping with the intention of those who wrote the words in the first place” (see Strange above). In doing that "Original intent and a reading of the words as to their prima facie meaning is never opposed to one another in sound constitutional interpretation.”

taking this result as a presupposition to reading the Bible and the Confessions; and then

NO; surely not. We never read and interpret the bible 'in light of' the confessions. If the Bereans are commended for confirming the Apostle's teaching by searching the scriptures we dare not say uninspired church standards of doctrine are above that. Again, the whole point of seeking intent is to seek clarity where there is a basis to do so; there is no imposition. See the Alan Strange quotes above and in context in my original post further up the thread.

assuming that the Bible and therefore the Confessions teach it, even though neither speaks clearly of it.

NO. See above.

Again, if this is not what you meant, then I am truly sorry. I take it back and repent of my error.

I accept the apology but if you recall I told you early on I thought you were pushing this through a grid prejudiced by your personal experience. Frankly, I don't think you understand this subject as clearly as you may think you do. But, in any event, give me the courtesy next time of seeking to understand what I say and not make presumptions. That outline of what you presumed is horrendous, implies a denial of sola scriptura and the proper role of uninspired secondary standards. Frankly, it was insulting.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well said Chris,

I accept the apology but if you recall I told you early on I thought you were pushing this through a grid prejudiced by your personal experience. Frankly, I don't think you understand this subject as clearly as you may think you do. But, in any event, give me the courtesy next time of seeking to understand what I say and not make presumptions. That outline of what you presumed is horrendous, implies a denial of sola scriptura and the proper role of uninspired secondary standards. Frankly, it was insulting.

Does this rub any of you wrong as it did me?

But I was the only one to say so. If you recall, Chris, I ordered a book from you: Jus Divinum. It was mostly for the purpose of seeking "original intent". I'm not opposed to searching that out at all. I've done it myself. What I am saying, though, and let me repeat it, you may not build anything upon it. And by that I mean that the only source for Bible teaching is the Bible itself, nothing else. Even good and necessary consequence is a result from the Bible, where the Bible leaves no other choice even though it does not expressly state it. But as to matters of teaching and worship, all that is needed is expressly stated, so that even the uneducated may come to see it through ordinary means.

Secondary resources are of a major importance. Especially when it comes to defining what is being said historically and linguistically. Sola Scriptura does not mean Soli Scriptura.

 

[JohnV]

Again, if this is not what you meant, then I am truly sorry. I take it back and repent of my error.

I accept the apology but if you recall I told you early on I thought you were pushing this through a grid prejudiced by your personal experience. Frankly, I don't think you understand this subject as clearly as you may think you do. But, in any event, give me the courtesy next time of seeking to understand what I say and not make presumptions. That outline of what you presumed is horrendous, implies a denial of sola scriptura and the proper role of uninspired secondary standards. Frankly, it was insulting.

I certainly did not mean to be insulting. If I did insult, I apologize and ask for your forgiveness. I'm glad, though, that you agree with me on these important issues.

You are entitled to your opinions about my personal experience. I ought not to publish the official record of these proceedings, so I can't set the record straight here so you can see that I've been quite circumspect about this. Whether or not this comes from personal experience, I have taken it as an example of something that is a common experience throughout the churches; it might not be happening in your church, but we all know of churches that do have this problem, whether it is, as you say, the creation days, or Federal Vision, or Presuppositionalism; or whatever has sprung from men's own conclusions. I chose Presuppositionalism because it comes from personal experience but also because the right to preach it has been defended on this Board at one time. I don't really have as much a right to talk about Federal Vision because it is not my own fight: I would be taking up the cause as an outsider to the actual struggle, since it is not in my church and not with people I know. The one about Presuppositionalism is one I actually took part in.

 

[JohnV]

Does this rub any of you wrong as it did me?

But I was the only one to say so. If you recall, Chris, I ordered a book from you: Jus Divinum. It was mostly for the purpose of seeking "original intent". I'm not opposed to searching that out at all. I've done it myself. What I am saying, though, and let me repeat it, you may not build anything upon it. And by that I mean that the only source for Bible teaching is the Bible itself, nothing else. Even good and necessary consequence is a result from the Bible, where the Bible leaves no other choice even though it does not expressly state it. But as to matters of teaching and worship, all that is needed is expressly stated, so that even the uneducated may come to see it through ordinary means.

Secondary resources are of a major importance. Especially when it comes to defining what is being said historically and linguistically. Sola Scriptura does not mean Soli Scriptura.

Randy:

I'm talking about people saying, "This is what the Bible teaches" and pulling that from other sources rather than the Bible. They're trying to make clear what the Bible does not say. And that goes against the RPW, using it the same way in the same context that the WCF makes of that verse in chapter I. The BC agrees, adding it to the manner of the worship of God as well, and citing that same verse.

I don't disagree at all with the fact that the Confessions are of major importance to the churches. I believe I am upholding that valuation of the importance of them. But the Bible still remains the supreme judge in all matters of controversies of religion; and that same article in the WCF (x) includes the examining of "doctrines of men, and private spirits" as to be judged by the Word of God, and "no other".

 

[JohnV]

In response to the Alan Strange quote:

Basically, what he's saying is that people shouldn't make of the church's standards whatever they feel it means for themselves. What the standards stand for is what they stand for; its univocal, not equivocal. And they have stood the test of time in the churches. And I agree with that.

 

[VictorBravo]

On that note, I think the thread has pretty much covered what it could have covered.