Remember when it was okayJohn Barach blogged today and said, "Remember when it was okay for Reformed writers to speak like this?" He then goes on to quote S. G. DeGraaf to challenge the meaning of Covenant of Works. As my research has shown the Covenant of Works has not always been constructed the way it is today among the non-FV'ers. However, as time has gone on the doctrine of the Covenant of Works gains "clarity" and receives its "mature" formulation.
Remembering when Reformed talked a certain way doesn't prove anything however or does it? Remember when it was ok to not have a fully worked out doctrine of the Trinity, redemption, etc? Remember when that was ok? However, now that time has gone on and those doctrines have been developed would it still be ok to talk as if they hadn't?
Would it still be ok to plop myself down in the early part of the 16th century when the imputation of Adam's sin, covenant of works, etc wasn't full developed and those things were even often denied? Is it ok to just plop ourself down anywhere in history and jump into the middle of a theological development and begin in the middle as if there hasn't been any work done?
Truly wondering.http://barach.us/2007/02/28/degraaf-on-the-pre-fall-covenant/trackback/
Cheers.
CR
10 comments:
When was it ever "okay" to deny the trinity? You mean the formulation wasnt as complete as it was post 325? The difference in this particular debate is the necessity of the covenant of works to remaining faithful to the Bible and confession. So, for instance, if the 3fu dont have an explicit statement on the COW, and some men dont hold to it, should they be looked at as going back to the dark ages? Murray, Hoeksma, De Graaf, these men arent from the 16th century but the 20th, are you saying the doctrine of the COW came to maturation in the 21st century? I think we are talking apples and oranges. Also, in the WCF, if the framers didnt demand a view of imputation as passive and active, should we now demand it (as in you forsake the Gospel if you deny it) because of the clarity of history? And who chooses when something is clear without a new confession or creed?
I never said it's ok to deny the trinity. Not even close. I said, "Remember when it was ok to not have a fully worked out doctrine of the Trinity, redemption, etc" Its formulation was the subject I was getting at.
You said,
And who chooses when something is clear without a new confession or creed?
I stated on the other blog that it is worked out in the councils of your church denomination. In the words of Dr. Clark -please refer to that post. =)
Anyway...I offered this as a question and not to debate it but to gain help with it. I'm not seeking to defend my question not Barach...just wondering where the madness begins and stops...I suppose.
I guess what needs to happen then is for every denomination that is involved with this current covenant issue needs to decide at their respective binding levels what is now confessional.
I think what would make everyone happy is if we made this a confessional issue rather than biblical; not to be taken the wrong way for we've established that we don't hold the WCF above the Word of God but the requirement for being an OPC or PCA etc isn't "I believe the Bible" bingo! your in! but its Confessional. So each denomination determines what is the proper interpretation and then we all go our respected ways...either stay or go somewhere where we aren't tearing at each other's throats.
CR
If a new "assembly" determines that the FV ways our not the proper meaning and binds it...I don't see what they big deal is with parting peaceably and going somewhere where an FV can fruitfully minister...why keep yelling about how truly confessional they are and just leave.
Actually what it is then is am I PCA.
If not then leave. Am I OPC? If not then leave. If your CREC then go and leave the PCA alone...etc. Go bear fruit in a denomination where you can...how hard is that?
CR
Let me put it in this light...If I go "FV", as it were, I'm having a hard time understanding why I would want to remain in the OPC,PCA, or URC. Abstractly speaking of course...there is the finer details of leaving a flock behind, consequence to family situation, etc etc....
We didn't stay in Calvary...
Well, part of the answer is that the guys who are associated with the "FV" think they still fit in with the denominations they're part of.
For instance, the PCA and OPC do not practice strict subscription. The "FV"-associated guys in the PCA and OPC subscribe to the Westminster Standards and do so honestly, taking exceptions at various points (e.g., paedocommunion).
That hasn't been a problem. But now, suddenly, they're being told they have to leave (which, of course, means either leaving your congregation, the congregation that liked your teaching, or trying to take your congregation with you, which is pretty traumatic).
In the URCNA, there are still lots of guys who were influenced by Schilder. For that matter, I was introduced to Shepherd when I was in seminary.
By "introduced," I mean literally introduced. Norm was secretary of the board (his signature is on my diploma), he spoke in chapel, he sometimes taught classes, his writings were assigned in class and not criticized, and students attended his church nearby and some may even have apprenticed with him. Definitely not persona non grata.
In fact if you listen to his 1982 lectures at Mid-America, you'll hear one of the old profs (Henry VanderKam, I think) say, "I just want to say before we have questions that that's the view of covenant we teach at this institution" or something to that effect.
So I and several other Mid-America graduates came by our appreciation for Norman Shepherd honestly. Besides, in seminary I was introduced (less literally) to the writings of Klaas Schilder and B. Holwerda. A lot of stuff in my 2003 AAPC lecture on covenant and election was lifted from a 1942 essay by Holwerda. This is stuff I was introduced to in seminary, and it wasn't presented as something dangerous.
In fact, it was presented as something within the bounds of the Reformed confessions. Later, I worked through paedocommunion and concluded that it also is within the bounds of the Three Forms of Unity.
Why should I have left the URC? Well, I left because I got a call, not because I thought my views were outside confessional bounds.
I have quibbles with some things in the Three Forms of Unity, and I'm not persuaded of strict subscription (which is what the URCNA practices ... it seems), but I'm still in a 3FU church.
So why do people think they can stay in the OPC, PCA, and URC? Because they don't think their views are significantly outside the confessional bounds -- not to the extent that they would have to leave.
And because they have long histories and ties with those denominations, too. They have friends there. They have congregation members they have to shepherd, churches they're pastoring.
All of those are decent reasons to stay, aren't they?
Yes those are excellent reasons for staying thats why I said I was speaking in abstract. "Abstractly speaking of course...there is the finer details of leaving a flock behind"
Maybe part of the issue is subscription...full or quibbles? These has always been part of the equation in the history of the Presbyterian church as it is in America...as far as I understand its history...taught to me by Dr.Hoffecker.
Oh see, I heard from a Doctor in the URC that Barach was run out of the denom fearing for his heretical ways. The valiant URC wielded the flaming sword of Ursinus, and Barach screamed in terror as he knew his black heart was exposed to all.
But I guess that was a caricature...
I think it is pretty obvious though that Schilder was Vanilla-safe in the time period between 1950-2002. It really sounds like Mid-America was a good place. I hope it can remain a good place.
Regarding Covenant of Works and the Trinity- The Trinity is biblical and it rules. The Covenant of Works isn't biblical nor does it rule. It is a reaction to Rome that misses the ontological point by a mile. Enough with this enslavement to the traditions of men. No more ancient near-eastern archaelogy reading the bible for me, and enough of post-Renaissance political theory. Bah!
Yeah, that's right, I said ontology =)
I'm appreciate your writing skill.Please keep on working hard.^^
notified hkamkjksa analogies noteworthy germ coast sheep inform mccutcheon baseballs types
lolikneri havaqatsu
main judi online pakai deposit pulsa tanpa potongan tentu dapat anda coba dan rasakan keuntungannya
Post a Comment