Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Exegesis on Confession's Scripture?
- I'm sorry for the misinformation, and thanks for providing the correct info BD.~Deejay----- Original Message -----From: thebishopsdoomSent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 6:01 AMSubject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Exegesis on Confession's Scripture?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brainiac"
> 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, worship, and
displinary cases in the national church.
See, for example:
The Scots would have adopted it without the prooftexts for the same
reason they adopted the Apostles' Creed without it having prooftexts.
The doctrine was recognized as Scriptural whether references to any
specific 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 those blanks
quickly enough, and that in so doing, they could not but strengthen
their case, and they fulfilled the task as required.