I'm sorry for the
misinformation, and thanks for providing the correct info
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 6:01
Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re:
Exegesis on Confession's Scripture?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> Hi Jerry,
No, it was the English House of
Commons that required the prooftexts,
and whatever positive contribution
they have had, the intention had
simply been a stalling effort on the part
of an erastian party in the
House of Commons, knowing if the state agreed
to recognize the WCF as
the officially recognized creed of England, they
would be legally
limiting their own power to interfere in the gov't,
displinary cases in the national church.
Scots would have adopted it without the prooftexts for the same
they adopted the Apostles' Creed without it having prooftexts.
doctrine was recognized as Scriptural whether references to any
texts, and any exegetical argumentation therefrom, were
wedded to specific
clauses and statements or no.
However, as for the Westminser Assembly
itself, as much as they knew
the process would stall up the works, there
was some confidence
within the members of Assembly that they could fill in
quickly enough, and that in so doing, they could not but
their case, and they fulfilled the task as