
06-23-2007, 01:09 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,865
Thanks: 4
Thanked 509 Times in 190 Posts
| |
Yes generally. I might put a few things differently, but I think the Conclusions were generally wise.
rsc Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 Dr Clark,
Would you then disagree with the Conclusions of Utrecht of 1905 on this issue? In regard to the second point, eternal justification, Synod declares:
that the term itself does not occur in the Confessional Standards but that it is not for this reason to be disapproved, any more than we would be justified in disapproving the term Covenant of Works and similar terms which have been adopted through theological usage;
that it is incorrect to say that our Confessional Standards know only of a justification by and through faith, since both Gods' Word (Rom. 4:25) and our Confession (Article XX) speak explicitly of an objective justification sealed by the resurrection of Christ, which in point of time precedes the subjective justification;
that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.
Wherefore Synod earnestly warns against any view that would do violence either to Christ's eternal suretyship for his elect, or to the requirement of a sincere faith to be justified before God in the tribunal of conscience. |
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology 
"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor Oceanside URC The Heidelblog |