I don't think there was some public controversy though I may be wrong. I think it comes down to the majority at Savoy wanted the more explicit language than was passed at Westminster because some of the divines at the Assembly quibbled about explicitly including it. There is a controversy about this "now" because advocates of what is called the Federal Vision use this fact to claim the denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, is not unConfessional in regards to the WCF. Chad Van Dixhoorn covers this example in his dissertation on the Westminster Assembly; and I believe Alan Strange (MARS) is writing a more detailed paper on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reformedman  yes, but again, the question is not about the doctrine, the question is why was so much written on it?
While my friend was giving me the question what went on in my mind was that he really wanted to know if there was something going on at the time, some heresy or some misusing or mistreatment of this doctrine which in turn required that the savoy and the lbcf needed to address the issue and make it very clear.
I don't know but that's what I thought.
Any ideas? |