Intinction and Adam... Where is our Good Faith?

Discussion in 'Church Order' started by PuritanCovenanter, Mar 15, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    [h=1]Intinction and Extinction: Where is Our Good Faith?
    Intinction and Extinction: Where is Our Good Faith? - Reformation21[/h]David B. Garner

    I admit that I might not fully understand all that is going on concerning these issues but I thought this was pretty good. Here are some portions taken from the blog post.

    I think he is correct guys if I am understanding him. It isn't that we need to rewrite anything as much as we need to recognize what is clearly written already and stand on those things.

    If the Church would just act and stand upon the overtly clear statements it has already.... well,... I don't know what to say. The words are already plain. Just judicially stand on them.

    I really appreciated something Rev. Winzer stated sometime back...

  2. BrettLemke

    BrettLemke Puritan Board Freshman

    I thought this was a fantastic article and really highlights the issues present within the PCA. It grieved me greatly to know that my Presbytery has sent an overture to the GA to look into revising Chapter 21 of the Confession on the use of recreations on the Lord's Day. That and the battle for intinction and the RPW has been at the forefront of my conversations with my community and elders. Suffice it to say, Deconstructionism has penetrated the church in a way that many do not even realize. May God humble us under His infallible Word, that speaks Truth and is able to make the simple man (of which I consider myself!) wise.
  3. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    TE Garner's analysis is spot on. I was initially surprised when I encountered this in the PCA but have years ago concluded that a "reader response" approach to the Confession is tolerated by many who are, quite simply, ambivalent about such things. I watched a man be passed on the floor of Presbytery who held to paedocommunion. He was asked to present a paper defending his views that, in large measure, departed from at least a dozen clauses in our standards.

    After being questioned by one of the most humble Pastors I know, one TE came up and stated: "We should not be mean to this TE. He has written a paper Biblically defending his view." The TE who held to paedocommunion was not even required to take exceptions to the several portions of the Westminster standards that his views clearly required.

    I really don't think the danger in our day is any one particular error but all the particular departures are greeted with a general apathy that "...he stated he can read the Westminster standards in a way that doesn't require he takes an exception." I heard two elderly TE's at 2012 GA state, during the paedocommunion discussion: "Well, as long as he's not practicing it, I don't have a problem with it...."

    Regarding Enns, another TE passionately told me that we (the collective we that is) pushed Enns out and that he knew several TE's that threatened to leave the PCA if the in thesi statement about evoloution was adoptied (as if our Confession's view is in doubt on the matter).

    It's really hard to know where to plant any kind of flag in such an environment. The sand is shifting all around so any appeal to anything fixed just doesn't seem to compute with many. In some ways, I think I would just prefer a firm liberalism or some other kind of frontal rejection of certain ideas. Trying to argue against jello with really nice men is really difficult because no view is ever really fully defined.
  4. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Probably in the end, it will be planted in a "different" environment altogether. At one point James Durham in his concerning Scandal after making every argument for unity, concluded, yet if you cannot be agreed on church government, there can be no unity. Replace church standards for church government and it amounts to the same thing. A wax nose is no unifying set of principles. We are not talking about exceptions; but how to even "hold" the doctrinal statements that one is swearing to uphold. It is actually rather sickening.
  5. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    I thought the article was very well done. However, where I agree that we shouldn't be changing our Constitution to further reinforce it, in this case intinction is not covered in the BCO. It only deals with distributing the elements where intinction isn't about distribution, it is about partaking and sacramental actions. The Standards do cover it, so it shouldn't be allowed.

    Now as it is for in these statements. I think we should not use them to reinforce the Constitution but to restate it. We do the same thing in preaching all the time. We restate what Scripture says over and over and over because people forget. This is the same thing for in thesi statements. They are a restatement of what Scripture and our Constitution say and they are used to cause the people to remember what we believe.

    For the theistic evolution overture which if passed would've been an in thesi statement, a similar statement was passed in the old PCUS in 2 out of 3 years. Because the people needed reminding. So I disagree with him there. But overall it was an excellent article.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page