04-27-2008, 03:46 PM
|
 | Use Bat Lip Balm | | Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 6,659
Thanks: 191
Thanked 2,436 Times in 1,347 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnOwen007  Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK This means that only those who hold to the TR are truly Reformed because the WCF says: | Why do all threads lead to either TR or EP debates? Can't we be free to disagree on these and still be reformed? Yes because the WCF is only one confession amongst other confessions that make up the historic reformed tradition. This means there is a degree of latitude on certain theological issues, the TR being one of them (and EP being another).
I guess the great question is whether we include the 1689 and Savoy confessions in the pool of historic reformed confessions. Certainly John Owen (who was behind the Savoy) called himself "reformed" and saw the congregationalists as "reformed". Jeremiah Burroughs (in Irenicum) believed that the disagreement over church polity wasn't fundamental to being reformed.
Personally I would want to include the 1689 and Savoy confessions because I don't think the issues of (1) church polity, and (2) subjects and mode of baptism, are issues big enough to make one not reformed. On these debates there are well-meaning Christians on either side, who believe they are reading Scripture faithfully. All the sides have so much in common. | It used to be that everything led to a baptism debate; for a while it seemed like everything turned into a rehash of Clark vs. Van Til. Perhaps the days will come when everything turns into a necessitarian vs. voluntarist or nominalist vs. realist debate.
|