
Originally Posted by
Unashamed 116
Why can we not just say, go to the Scriptures. While I think both history and confessions are good, our understanding ought to be first tought from the view laid out in the Word and then expounded on by such means.
This is an important topic because it gets at the root differences between confessional people and non-confessional people.
The problem that I see is that both would say that they are Biblical. But if you ask people what they believe the Bible teaches, they have different answers. The Calvinist and the Arminian both say that they follow the Bible. That is why one needs a confession.
Edit: regarding root differences leading to different doctrines, our point of view would be that conscientious Arminians haven't really based their thinking on scripture. But they would say that they did. And that is why confessions are needed. We then would compare the doctrinal understanding and to do this we would need a common source of information. That is the scripture.
This summarizes that you would start with the confessions, but this would ultimately lead back to the scripture in a useful manner.
Tim Lindsay
member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, Halifax, NS, Canada
Living in Cape Town, South Africa
"at the foot of Table Mountain, underneath the Southern Cross, not far from the Cape of Good Hope"
Bookmarks