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

Re: The CHURCH is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.