bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
W. Robert Godfrey, writing in the January, 2019, issue of Tabletalk, in his article, "The Reason for Dort," writes (page 8, bold is mine):
"The Dutch Calvinists decided that the synod should be more than simply a national synod. They invited representatives from most of the Reformed churches of Europe to attend and to be full voting members of the synod. The result was the greatest and most ecumenical gathering of Reformed churches ever held. (Lest my Presbyterian friends feel that I am slighting the Westminster Assembly, let me remind them that that assembly was not properly a church gathering but a gathering of theologians to advise the English Parliament."
Some questions:
1. Is this true?
2. If it is true, does that mean that the Westminster Assembly was not a gathering of the church, as opposed to the Synod of Dort?
3. If Westminster was not an official gathering of the church, sanctioned and organized by the church, do its secondary standards actually carry any weight in the church as church-written and church-approved documents?
I'm asking these questions honestly. I'm not trying to either denigrate the Westminster Assembly and its documents or to carry water for the Synod of Dort and its documents. My basic question is whether the Westminster Standards have any actual standing among the Reformed churches if, in fact, the Westminster Assembly was not a church-sanctioned and approved event.
Any opinions? (Where's Chad van Dixhoorn when you really need him?)
"The Dutch Calvinists decided that the synod should be more than simply a national synod. They invited representatives from most of the Reformed churches of Europe to attend and to be full voting members of the synod. The result was the greatest and most ecumenical gathering of Reformed churches ever held. (Lest my Presbyterian friends feel that I am slighting the Westminster Assembly, let me remind them that that assembly was not properly a church gathering but a gathering of theologians to advise the English Parliament."
Some questions:
1. Is this true?
2. If it is true, does that mean that the Westminster Assembly was not a gathering of the church, as opposed to the Synod of Dort?
3. If Westminster was not an official gathering of the church, sanctioned and organized by the church, do its secondary standards actually carry any weight in the church as church-written and church-approved documents?
I'm asking these questions honestly. I'm not trying to either denigrate the Westminster Assembly and its documents or to carry water for the Synod of Dort and its documents. My basic question is whether the Westminster Standards have any actual standing among the Reformed churches if, in fact, the Westminster Assembly was not a church-sanctioned and approved event.
Any opinions? (Where's Chad van Dixhoorn when you really need him?)