Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak  Another point on the history. If a signatory of Dort, Westminster, etc., argued for other views in their writings, it may be as well to inquire whether those writings were before or after their signing, or both. If before, the judgment of charity would declare that their minds changed, possibly as a result of the discussion. If after, then they may be chargeable with a genuine inconsistency. |
This is exactly what I was trying to get at. Are there any writings that speak on this? I sense that if opposites shook hands and both signed a document in which they disagreed, I would be concerned with only asking why and for what reason. Did Gillespie (100% limited) sjhake ahnds with Calmay (HU) on this issue?
Matt said: Universalist tendencies in signers of the creeds and confessions don't make universalist sympathizers Reformed, it makes them foolish for signing confessions without thinking through the implications of those confessions theologically and biblically logically. It doesn't make Calamy logically and biblically "ok" because he signed the WCF. Instead, it makes him part of a really great group of minds who disagreed with him. It doesn't say anything about the WCF being Reformed, but it does say volumes about what Calamy understood or not.
I concur with an Amen on this point. But do we know why he signed? Did he believe his view was allowed by the confession? As an aside, did each part of dort of the WCF allow for signatures and other parts some could abstain? Or did the document as a whole have to be signed at the end?