Again, for the hundredth time, we disagree that there are not specific and clearly contrasting propositions taught by one view as opposed to the other. Until that is admitted discussion on the matter is useless.
Again, for the hundredth time, we disagree that there are not specific and clearly contrasting propositions taught by one view as opposed to the other. Until that is admitted discussion on the matter is useless.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
I have never denied that there are specific differences between the two (or more) parties. But what is necessary within Presbyterianism and Reformed churches is to prove that the ministers are in fact outside of the bounds of the confessions. The confessions are clearly consensus documents and must be interepreted as such. I know that there are certain passages of the Westminster Confession which place those in the FV outside of a strict subscription. I also know that there are positions held by critics of the FV that put the critics outside of strict subscription. What I don't see is the critics focusing upon those areas in which the FV goes outside the bounds and leaving it at that. What I do see is a hodge podge of contradictory accusations. I'm all in favor of strict subscriptionism. I think that everyone who seeks to be a minister in the LCMS should believe that everything taught in the Book of Concord is true and uphold it. I think every Presbyterian minister should believe that everything taught in the Westminster standards is true and uphold it. I think every Reformed minister should believe that everything taught in the three forms of unity is true and uphold it.Originally Posted by Robert Higby
But we all know that this doesn't happen in real life. But if someone is going to try to raise charges in some way, they at least ought to be strict subscriptionists and I haven't seen a single case in which someone actually was. I see Baptistic Presbyterians complaining that the FV is too sacramental. I see Zwinglians complaining that the FV is too sacramental. I even see those who hold to almost the exact same position on the Lord's Suppers as those in the FV (Michael Horton) complaining that the FV is too sacramental. I see people in Reformed churches complaining that the FV denies the covenant of works regardless of the fact that the Three Forms of Unity say nothing of a covenant of works.
The one area in which all within the FV are agreed upon is that election should be viewed through the lens of the covenant. The FV helds to the same basic position on this issue as the Canadian Reformed Churches. Yet for some reason the URC is seeking ecumenical relations with the Canadian Reformed while condemning the FV. In fact, it is the Canadian Reformed that have been unwilling for the most part to have full communion with the URC.
It's all church politics. The accusations against those who affiliate with the FV are mostly because of non-doctrinal issues and mostly due to things not covered in the WCF.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
But what is necessary within Presbyterianism and Reformed churches is to prove that the ministers are in fact outside of the bounds of the confessions.
But Charles, you are not distinguishing between what the CHURCHES have failed to do and what we here at p-net stand for! We have no stake whatsoever in the success or failure of any church or denomination. We are not even looking at all for a church to agree with confessionally. The MOST that can be said is that some of us might enjoy and be edified by a church worship service where the teaching and associated events honor the true gospel IN SOME MEASURE. When I post these threads/facts I really have no stake whatsoever in who 'wins' the controversy. The only thing I stand to gain is that as a third class citizen who doesn't even take communion, I might be able to worship in a church where preachers have the liberty to proclaim the gospel in enough clarity that I am edified AT ALL. This is not possible in the Missouri Presbytery where I reside; Federal Vision has taken over the churches to the point that there is no gospel left undistorted by the doctrines of subjective justification and sacramentalism. Worshipping in these assemblies has absolutely no relevance for me personally.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
But the ministers do not sware to uphold what p-net believe and so it would be very dishonest to defrock someone because they disagree with p-net. In many cases they would in fact have to disagree with p-net to agree with the WCF.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Fine, let them teach what they will--I just can't worship in churches that don't honor, emphasize, or care for exalting the true gospel. The messages have deteriorated into will-worship, a theology of glory, and fascination with mysticism to the point that anyone who loves the gospel can never be blessed. So their houses are left unto them.
Their current stance is a most PERVERSE interpretation of the WCF (ala Norman Shepherd) that many of those from former times would shrink from in absolute horror. I rest my case.
Last edited by Robert R. Higby; 03-24-2008 at 08:29 PM.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks