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

The CHURCH is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth

Expand Messages
  • Gary Gearon
    Dear brethren, While we are discussing the WCF, let us not forget that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. 1 Tim. 3:15. The Holy Spirit has
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear brethren,
       
      While we are discussing the WCF, let us not forget that the "Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth." 1 Tim. 3:15. The Holy Spirit has deposited  Truth in the form of a "Pillar and Ground," which he calls His "Church." This was waaay before the WCF was a thought in anyone's mind.
       
      Gary 
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Martin
      Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 7:17 PM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] WCF and the inerrency but fallibility of subordinate standards

      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.


      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.
    • glenn2m
      Gary - Isn t this what the Roman Catholic s claim? How is this different? ... is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. 1 Tim. 3:15. The Holy Spirit has
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Gary - Isn't this what the Roman Catholic's claim? How is this
        different?




        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Gearon"
        <GGearon@p...> wrote:
        > Dear brethren,
        >
        > While we are discussing the WCF, let us not forget that the "Church
        is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth." 1 Tim. 3:15. The Holy Spirit
        has deposited Truth in the form of a "Pillar and Ground," which he
        calls His "Church." This was waaay before the WCF was a thought in
        anyone's mind.
        >
        > Gary
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Martin
        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 7:17 PM
        > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] WCF and the inerrency but
        fallibility of subordinate standards
        >
        >
        > 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
        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        > 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.
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        >
        >
        > 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.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.