I cross posted with Rev Winzer. Forget what I said, his explanation is much better.

__________________

That is a very interesting point. I look forward to reading the responses. Though I would not entirely say it was Ken, as we are discussing the role of the confessions in the life of the church.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I've never had reason to doubt that extraordinary providence may dispense with means and still produce a result which is in accord with the nature of second causes. This is in fact what occurs in all the miracles recorded in Scripture. The blind man was not healed by ordinary means, but his new found ability was undoubtedly that which is called the power of sight.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that the WCF is inerrant but I also agree with Rev. Winzer (and others) that something communicated by man can be without error in terms of the principles it conveys. Were this not so it would make the communication of the Gospel impossible.

I've been trying to note how people treat their own reading of Scripture as functionally inerrant in many cases. They convince themselves that by reading the Scriptures they have now come to an understanding of the Truth by which they can roundly dismiss all error. What they don't reckon, however, is the deceptiveness of their own heart. This Proverb captures some of that truth:

I think there is far too much confidence among many to assume that they have not been deceived or that, by studying for themselves that they'll be in a place to reform the Church.

The real irony is when such men expect others to listen to their teaching on the Word. Shouldn't they enjoin people not to listen to them as they are merely re-expressing and explaining what the Word says? As soon as they begin to explain the proper interpretation of a passage then, according to their standard of "trust nobody but yourself" they need to realize that they have nothing to say to anyone but themselves. Thus, a Church like this would include no expository preaching but simply the reading of the Word with everybody deciding for themselves what seems right in their own eyes.

But the irony goes further because Churches are never like this. Such men typically gather a following around themselves and even as they disdain those that read a man-made Confession {emphasis added to note disgust}, they hang on every word of their leader who is, after all, "...just telling us what the Bible says."

In the end, the real question is not whether or not a person is going to make eternal life and death decisions on the basis of a creed. The question is the creed they are going to choose.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

This is a stretch Mat. Eve is never mentioned in the pauline corpus. All our sin/corruption, depravity, flows from Adam as our federal head. Adam is the fountain of original sin and imputed sin. The corruption of our human nature is always attributed to Adam. Therefore I stand in my assesment, the wording is in error regarding this and should be changed. Eve is NEVER spoken of as falling. It is forever the Fall of Adam.

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

Please feel free to call me Matthew.

First, you did not offer any comment on Ps. 51:5, where the Psalmist's sin is directly traced back to his conception in the womb of his mother.

Secondly, it is simply false to say that Eve is never mentioned in the Pauline corpus. 1 Tim. 2 specifically mentions her transgression, and does so in the context of continuing ramifications for female behaviour and salvation.

Thirdly, you are still confounding imputation with corruption -- legal guilt and original sin. Our guiltiness is the result of one sin alone -- Adam's first sin. Our fallen nature is inherited from fallen parents -- that which is born of the flesh is flesh.

What is the difference between 'original' sin and 'imputed' sin? Isn't Adam's 'original' sin the same sin that is 'imputed' to us?

And Rev Winzer, help me to understand you. Am I on the right path concerning the confession?

Many of these types that you describe, in my experience, come from a RC background and their resistance to creeds seems to stem from that. Just the mention of the word 'catechism class' causes many RCs to cringe. But what is interesting is they've left the RC Pope just to adopt another one. Themselves! They look at themselves as Popes and their own interpretation is authoritative.

Another thing I have noticed is that people don't like the Reformed confessions because usually they find the confessions are right and they are wrong. Most people do not like to find out their stronghold is wrong, especially when it is a stronghold that they have held for a long time, and was also held by some beloved pastor from their past. (Try preaching about 1 Tim 2:12 to an older, liberal baptist congregation!)

Ken,

Very true but I was also thinking of "Bible belt" types or, especially, Calvary Chapel folk. The latter sect is very culpable to the cult of personality even as they proclaim their freedom from man-made Confessions.

I'm not sure what you are asking, Pastor Klein; but please consider Shorter Catechism answer 18 and Larger Catechism answer 25 for a clear definition of original sin.

Rev. Winzer,

First: that is not what the confession says. It says that God may work "against" second causes. That means that they are not "in accord with the nature of second causes."

Second: Scripture records incidents that back up the Confession's formulation in 6.3 - the sun moving backward, the dead rising, etc. These are not the result of, or in accord with second causes, but "without, above, and against" them.

I fail to see how pointing out a grammatical inconsistency does any violence to the Confession. A strained reading does, however.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

This is where the confusion is arising from. Please read it again and it will be seen the Confession does not say He may work against second causes, but against means. You are equating the two things, where the Confession clearly distinguishes them. I think it is important to ensure the proper meaning of the Confession is understood before error is charged upon it.

Thank you for that suggestion. My question is, does the confession deal with both imputation and corruption in chapter VI, as well as here in LC Q #25?

And if so, that could help resolve the dilemma posed above. Adam's sin is referred to only in the context of imputed sin, and not to the loss of righteousness or the corrupted nature. Hence, no contradiction with Q 26:

I understand the meaning of the Confession. Second causes are means. 6.3 clearly implies that there are two kinds of Providence: (1) ordinary, that uses means; and (2) extraordinary which does not, and may work against means.

I fail to see how there could be a second cause that is not also a means. Is it a second cause that life comes from death? Is it a second cause that the sun moves backward or stand still? Is it a second cause that a dead man's bones cause a dead man to be alive? Is it a second cause that iron swims/floats?

Please explain to me how these are in accordance with second causes.

Pastor Klein, Yes, Larger Catechism 25 clarifies that original sin is the common designation for the corruption of man's nature. This provides the key to unlocking the correct meaning of "original sin" in answer 26. I hope that is what you were looking for. Blessings!

Fred,

I'm certain Matthew will respond himself but let me see if I'm stating what he's saying another way.

WCF 5.2 is noting that everything that happens after the first cause (decree) falls out according the nature of secondary causes (providence). The statement is more a definition of secondary causality itself - that is all that happens after the first cause falls out according to providence.

WCF 5.3, on the other hand, is dealing with the fact that God sometimes interrupts ordinary providence (what some call "natural laws") and works without or supercedes their normal operation.

But, as Matthew noted, even when He's doing that, He's still using secondary causes. For example, in Joshua, the sun has stopped in the sky to prolong the day - its natural course has been interrupted. Nevertheless, even though ordinary means have been interrupted it's the same sun providing prolonged light for the battle.

That might not completely resolve the issue if there's another knot but it seems correct to me.