The Nature of the Westminster Standards?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So for example, it's clear the Divines did not specifiy "active obedience" in order to accommodate men like Twisse.

This is the kind of consensus which is clearly deniable. There is no accommodation of the views of an individual or a minority. The consensus is always in the direction of maintaining catholicity among reformed churches. According to Featley's account of the discussion in the revision of the 39 articles, a compelling factor for more general terms was the way the matter had been settled by other churches.
 
As far as I'm aware (and, understand that my experience is limited to my own denomination), at the time of examination, anyone on the floor of Presbytery can ask questions of the TE being examined. Do they allow that in the PCA? A pointed question may not prevent the TE from being transferred/ordained in your Presbytery, but it may get you the information you need and whatever his answer is will then be a matter of record.

Each candidate is required to write theological statements before being examined. Those are included as part of the attachments of the minutes. The only things that get listed in the minutes are the stated differences and if the Presbytery granted an exception to that difference. Questions and answers don't get written in the records.

What is interesting to me is that it is being argued that a pastor does not have to state a difference for holding to a non ordinary day view. The "consensus document" view is being used to justify it. And this appears to have been changed by a report on Creation by a GA committee in the PCA, if what Chris is saying is true. I don't understand why it would be a big deal to state a difference on one's view of Creation since the PCA allows for it anyway.
 
So for example, it's clear the Divines did not specifiy "active obedience" in order to accommodate men like Twisse.

This is the kind of consensus which is clearly deniable. There is no accommodation of the views of an individual or a minority. The consensus is always in the direction of maintaining catholicity among reformed churches. According to Featley's account of the discussion in the revision of the 39 articles, a compelling factor for more general terms was the way the matter had been settled by other churches.

Could you explain this a little more? What do you think the difference is in "maintaining catholicity" vs. allowing different views within a certain scope? I'm not sure I see what the difference is. I agree they were aiming for catholicity. But it's also clear there were differences of opinion among the divines and yet they could all subsribe to the language chosen while maintaining their views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top