Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvibaptist  Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvibaptist I voted that I am an Arminian spy. My reason is that I agree with Rev. Winzer above. No human statement is infallible. I also don't believe that they can be inerrant. But I do not know of anything in the 1689 to which I cannot subscribe. Simply put, I believe it is an accurate portrayal of the Scripture. If I didn't believe that, I would not believe it. | The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true. | Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do. |
I think you're missing the point.
Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?
A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.