Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress  It was not just Rutherford's view, and while they may have said more about it (maybe the problem is they said to much?), I think it is also found in English Puritanism; maybe some one can document that. My pov is that this was a dearly held Scottish position and that if the Scottish Kirk thought the view was precluded by the WCF, they would have had something to say about it. It was as far as I know not officially debated at the Assembly, though the fact Gillespie addresses it as a topic in his Miscellany, made up of what one has theorized as study papers, may indicate some discussion of it amongst divines took place, or it at least was a topic that occurred to him while at the Assembly (which, and I may be wrong, I believe is where most of the papers in the Miscellany were written). |
Chris:
question, but was it done by a majority vote for the WCF? In an instance like this, there had to have been talks even if not recorded since Rutherford and the scots were so prevalient in other areas, when they "lost" their opinion, was it settled under contention?
Supralapsarianism for instance, Twisse was hardcore, you mentioned Rutherford, and there were many others. Why was there such a spirit of compramise for the document, yet their private writings are against what they actually signed. Am I missing something or can you or anyone else enlighten me.