Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate standards

Expand Messages
  • Martin
    Thanks for the fair evaluation of the matter Brian. Sometimes it is helpful to have another perspective on a matter. Martin ... From: b_kirkman To:
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the fair evaluation of the matter Brian.  Sometimes it is helpful to have another perspective on a matter.
       
      Martin
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: b_kirkman
      Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:00 AM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate standards

      Colin and Martin,

      I know that quivveling over words is shameful so let’s attempt to speak clearly, in brotherly love.

       

      Inerrant can mean both 1) unable to err and 2) free from error.

       

      The first definition is synonymous with infallible, however the second definition is slightly different.

       

      By definition #1, both Martin, Colin, and myself (along with everyone who is truly RP) considers the WCF to NOT be inerrant.

      By definition #2 Martin and I (along with everyone who is truly RP) considers the WCF to be inerrant (free from error), and Colin personally judges that it contain some error in some parts.

       

      None of us should get heated up by the fact alone that someone does not consider the WCF to be free from error.  Not long ago, I did not consider it to be free from error.  Then through studying the issues (especially the ones that Colin has brought up) I had to change my position to one of uncertainty.  Then through God’s grace, I began to realize that they are in accordance with God’s word although always subject to improvement and revision.  Colin, you can disagree, and I know you do.  But charitable dialogue and above all other means, reliance on the God’s revelation through his word and Spirit will bring us closer together.  If nothing else we can understand each other better than what’s been going on here quite a bit so far.

       

       

      The history of the disagreement:

      The issues of magistracy that have caused revisions in the WCF are issues that have been dealt with quite thoroughly by the Act, Declaration, and Testimony as well as by such authors as William Cunningham, William Symington, and George Gillespie for starters.  The revised versions are from the Resolutioner churches and their daughters (such as PCUSA, PCA, OPC, ect.) who have always had these exact issues as the primary reasons for separation from those who faithfully held to the covenants.  The revisions that they made in the 18th century are not surprising, given that they had completely trodden the substance of the covenants many years prior at the Resolution Settlement of 1689.  Which, by the way, was such a despicable compromise to the still Erastian civil head by the presbytery that later errors were guaranteed to plague the Church of Scotland except had they repented of this sinful engagement.  The original testimony against them still stands unanswered.  Sure there have been attempts to answer the Covenanters, but they’ve all fallen short of sound biblical reasoning.

       

      Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters and hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate and distinct from the Resolutioners.  We should focus our discussion around the differing principles of these two groups if we’re going to obtain any traction.

       

      Truth and peace,

      Brian Kirkman



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Jerry Waybright
      I just wanted to thank Brian Churchman for this excellent post. So... Thank you. gmw. ... From: b_kirkman To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I just wanted to thank Brian "Churchman" for this excellent post.  So...
         
        Thank you.
         
        gmw.
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: b_kirkman
        Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:00 PM
        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate standards

        Colin and Martin,

        I know that quivveling over words is shameful so let’s attempt to speak clearly, in brotherly love.

         

        Inerrant can mean both 1) unable to err and 2) free from error.

         

        The first definition is synonymous with infallible, however the second definition is slightly different.

         

        By definition #1, both Martin, Colin, and myself (along with everyone who is truly RP) considers the WCF to NOT be inerrant.

        By definition #2 Martin and I (along with everyone who is truly RP) considers the WCF to be inerrant (free from error), and Colin personally judges that it contain some error in some parts.

         

        None of us should get heated up by the fact alone that someone does not consider the WCF to be free from error.  Not long ago, I did not consider it to be free from error.  Then through studying the issues (especially the ones that Colin has brought up) I had to change my position to one of uncertainty.  Then through God’s grace, I began to realize that they are in accordance with God’s word although always subject to improvement and revision.  Colin, you can disagree, and I know you do.  But charitable dialogue and above all other means, reliance on the God’s revelation through his word and Spirit will bring us closer together.  If nothing else we can understand each other better than what’s been going on here quite a bit so far.

         

         

        The history of the disagreement:

        The issues of magistracy that have caused revisions in the WCF are issues that have been dealt with quite thoroughly by the Act, Declaration, and Testimony as well as by such authors as William Cunningham, William Symington, and George Gillespie for starters.  The revised versions are from the Resolutioner churches and their daughters (such as PCUSA, PCA, OPC, ect.) who have always had these exact issues as the primary reasons for separation from those who faithfully held to the covenants.  The revisions that they made in the 18th century are not surprising, given that they had completely trodden the substance of the covenants many years prior at the Resolution Settlement of 1689.  Which, by the way, was such a despicable compromise to the still Erastian civil head by the presbytery that later errors were guaranteed to plague the Church of Scotland except had they repented of this sinful engagement.  The original testimony against them still stands unanswered.  Sure there have been attempts to answer the Covenanters, but they’ve all fallen short of sound biblical reasoning.

         

        Colin, we (CovenantedReformationClub) are Covenanters and hold to the faithful attainments of our forefathers as separate and distinct from the Resolutioners.  We should focus our discussion around the differing principles of these two groups if we’re going to obtain any traction.

         

        Truth and peace,

        Brian Kirkman



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • b_kirkman2002
        You re welcome, Jerry. I ve been praying for you and your household. ... So...
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          You're welcome, Jerry.

          I've been praying for you and your household.


          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Waybright"
          <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
          > I just wanted to thank Brian "Churchman" for this excellent post.
          So...
          >
          > Thank you.
          >
          > gmw.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.