Shouldn't you state that a group of ten ministers,
sympathetic to the Federal Vision, have written a letter.
Here is but one example:
Quote:
Study Report:
• 2214- “The Westminster Standards only speak of a “union with Christ” as that which is effectual; or to say it another way, as that which is saving and belongs to the elect.”
...
Questions:
• Why does the committee narrowly interpret our standards to speak “only” of union with Christ as belonging to the decretally elect when there are ways that our standards understand this more broadly? 2
|
What is this killer footnote that will show that the committee "narrowly" interpreted the Westminster standards? Why here is the footnote:
Quote:
2 For example, WLC 167 asks, “How is our Baptism to be improved by us? Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others…by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized.”
Isn’t this an instance when the standards encourage the entire visible church to draw strength from the one “into whom we are baptized?”
|
Umm...yes, but only the Elect can do so because they have hearts that have been transformed to look to the death and resurrection of Christ. Why would a minister of the Gospel, that calls himself Reformed, presume that an unregenerate man would look to the resurrection and death of Christ for strength?