Puritan Board Freshman
This is where the GNC thing comes in, because you can argue that the 1689 folks borrowed their theology on certain things and assumed certain metaphysical ideas, but they also denied the form of theology (GNC) that would give them traction to force the issue that it is confessional to go beyond clear exegetical ideas. I think some of these ideas on inseparable operations are GNC but are very hard to argue for with respect to grounding everything in exegetical conclusions.
I do not think your assertion follows. 1689 does not deny GNC rather modifies it to only include necessary as separated from "good".
Obviously, the covenantal differences plays the majority part in separating these things, yet it does not follow that they lack the "traction to force issues beyond clear exegetical ideas".
For example, I was discussing with a NCT re: the existence of moral law (which they - being non-confessional and partially dispensationalist - outright deny), the conversation switched to "what Scripture says" and he even denied theology is allowed to make logical deductions!
I pointed out to him that he is - in point of fact - unintentionally denying many doctrinal truths regarding the Trinity.
1) "All words that the Son says are words that the Father says" (John 17:7-8)
2) "All words that the Spirit says are words that the Son says" (John 16:13-14)
Therefore, all words that the Spirit says are words that the Father says.
The conclusion has no direct chapter and verse. It flows and follows logically from the "Barbra" syllogism of the two preceding verses. (This was again pulled from Poythress on logic).
If you say some of these ideas on inseparable operations are GNC but hard to argue for with respect to grounding everything in exegetical conclusions, do you mean it is hard to construct exegetically based syllogisms? I am unfamiliar with ISO so I am genuinely asking while at the same time defending the honor of my confession a little bit.
God bless you