Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from Biblical Revelation as propositional and logically systematic in nature, whether verbal or written, or asserts that such teaching is Greek and/or Hellenistic in nature, identifies historic Reformed teaching as some type of "˜Gnostic theology', denies the grammatico-historical method of interpretation, belittles or denies Christianity as that system of doctrine taught in the Scripture, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from Biblical Revelation as propositional and logically systematic in nature, whether verbal or written, or asserts that such teaching is Greek and/or Hellenistic in nature, identifies historic Reformed teaching as some type of "˜Gnostic theology', denies the grammatico-historical method of interpretation, belittles or denies Christianity as that system of doctrine taught in the Scripture, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Just curious, could you give examples of Reformed people explicitly denying the propositional content of scripture? The only reason I ask: I come from a liberal baptist environment where liberals denied propositional truth en toto (Think Karl Barth). I am just wondering if you could point me to some FV guys doing that. I am not challenging the statement. It seems pretty good to me, alhtough a few things could be explained more, but that's okay.
Originally posted by webmaster
Thought you might like this - its the statement on this issue for the RPCGA:
http://www.rpcga.org/index.php?p=aboutus&sub=justification_1&sub_nav=OSS
Originally posted by wsw201
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from Biblical Revelation as propositional and logically systematic in nature, whether verbal or written, or asserts that such teaching is Greek and/or Hellenistic in nature, identifies historic Reformed teaching as some type of "˜Gnostic theology', denies the grammatico-historical method of interpretation, belittles or denies Christianity as that system of doctrine taught in the Scripture, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Just curious, could you give examples of Reformed people explicitly denying the propositional content of scripture? The only reason I ask: I come from a liberal baptist environment where liberals denied propositional truth en toto (Think Karl Barth). I am just wondering if you could point me to some FV guys doing that. I am not challenging the statement. It seems pretty good to me, alhtough a few things could be explained more, but that's okay.
I believe you can find this in Steve Schissel's works. At AAPC 2002, he went on quite a rant about "propositions".
Just curious, could you give examples of Reformed people explicitly denying the propositional content of scripture?
Originally posted by smallbeans
That's another place it is unclear. When you say:
Just curious, could you give examples of Reformed people explicitly denying the propositional content of scripture?
You are repeating the language of the statement which could mean they are concerned about:
1. People who deny certain propositions in scripture (certain bits of propositional content in scripture)
or
2. People who deny that the scriptures contain propositions
or
3. People who deny that the scriptures have a single mode of discourse - propositional discourse.
So their statement's lack of precision hampers its usefulness. It isn't clear, exactly, what they are concerned about. Now, we all think we pretty much know what the current issues are, but church statements need to be clear 20 years from now too.
I had him in mind actually from the Beisner book. But I do recall he caught himself by saying something along the lines "We like propositions. We really do. We find them useful." If he means what I think he means, then all he did was phrase his statement very badly. But if I am wrong and he is advocating something similar to OT scholar G E Wright, then that is something else.
Originally posted by webmaster
Thought you might like this - its the statement on this issue for the RPCGA:
http://www.rpcga.org/index.php?p=aboutus&sub=justification_1&sub_nav=OSS
What if instead, someone says that baptism imputed Christ's righteousness, resulting in alien righteousness posessed by the baptizand?Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that asserts that Baptism regenerates, initiates or infuses Christ's righteousness, resulting in a personal righteousness, thereby making him acceptable to God in salvation, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards