Mr. Bultitude
Puritan Board Freshman
Apology accepted, Patrick.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.
While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.
From the Explanatory Essay on The LIGONIER STATEMENT on CHRISTOLOGY:
Paragraph labeled FOR WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION
Ligonier humbly offers this statement for the church. From the early centuries, Christians have used creeds in the church’s liturgy. It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose.
This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.
While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.
From the Explanatory Essay on The LIGONIER STATEMENT on CHRISTOLOGY:
Paragraph labeled FOR WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION
Ligonier humbly offers this statement for the church. From the early centuries, Christians have used creeds in the church’s liturgy. It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose.
Your point? Is it offered as a creed or a statement?
Since we want to be PRECISE and actually use our minds carefully, an offered statement is not a creed. It can become a creed but is not so at the offering. Think with your minds and not your emotions. Do they hope their statement will be adopted by those who have ecclesiastical authority so to do? Yes. Is it a creed as offered? They explicitly deny this. One may argue that they are confused but to impute motives to elders when the witness of their own hand denies their imputed intent would be chargeable in a Church court and I would assume that an elder would understand this.
Q143: Which is the ninth commandment?
A143: The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[1]
1. Exod. 20:16
Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;[10] a charitable esteem of our neighbors;[11] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[12] sorrowing for,[13] and covering of their infirmities;[14] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[15] defending their innocence;[16] a ready receiving of a good report,[17] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[18] concerning them; discouraging talebearers,[19] flatterers,[20] and slanderers;[21] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[22] keeping of lawful promises;[23] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[24]
(1. Zech. 8:16 2. III John 1:12 3. Prov. 31:8-9 4. Psa. 15:2 5. II Chr. 19:9 6. I Sam. 19:4-5 7. Josh. 7:19 8. II Sam. 14:18-20 9. Lev. 19:15; Prov. 14:5, 25 10. II Cor. 1:17-18; Eph. 4:25 11. Heb. 6:9; I Cor. 13:7 12. Rom. 1:8; II John 1:4; III John 1:3-4 13. II Cor. 2:4; 12:21 14. Prov. 17:9; I Peter 4:8 15. I Cor. 1:4-5, 7; II Tim. 1:4-5 16. I Sam. 22:14 17. I Cor. 13:6-7 18. Psa. 15:3 19. Prov. 25:23 20. Prov. 26:24-25 21. Psa. 101:5 22. Prov. 22:1; John 8:49 23. Psa. 15:4 24. Phil. 4:8)
LC Q 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47]
(1. I Sam. 17:28; II Sam. 1:9-10, 15-16; 16:3 2. Lev. 19:15; Hab. 1:4 3. Prov. 6:16, 19; 19:5 4. Acts 6:13 5. Jer. 9:3, 5; Acts 24:2, 5; Psa. 3:1-4; 12:3-4 6. Prov. 17:15; I Kings 21:9-14 7. Isa. 5:23 8. Psa. 119:69; Luke 16:5-7; 19:8 9. Lev. 5:1; Acts 5:3, 8-9; II Tim. 4:6 10. I Kings 1:6; Lev. 19:17 11. Isa. 59:4 12. Prov. 29:11 13. I Sam. 22:9-10; Psa. 52:1 14. Psa. 56:5; John 2:19; Matt. 26:60-61 15. Gen. 3:5, 26:7, 9 16. Isa. 59:13 17. Lev. 19:11; Col. 3:9 18. Psa. 1:20 19. Psa. 15:3 20. James 4:11; Jer. 38:4 21. Lev. 19:16 22. Rom. 1:29-30 23. Gen. 21:9; Gal. 4:29 24. I Cor. 6:10 25. Mattt. 7:1 26. Acts 28:4 27. Gen. 38:24; Rom. 2:1 28. Neh. 6:6-8; Rom. 3:8; Psa. 69:10; I Sam. 1:13-15; II Sam. 10:3 29. Psa. 12:2-3 30. II Tim. 3: 31. Luke 18:9, 11; Rom. 12:16; I Cor. 4:6; Acts 12:22; Exod. 4:10-14 32. Job 4:6, 27:5-6 33. Matt. 7:3-5 34. Prov. 28:13; 30:20; Gen. 3:12-13; 4:9; Jer. 2:35; II Kings 5:25 35. Gen. 9:22; Prov. 25:9-10 36. Exod. 23:1 37. Prov. 29:12 38. Acts 7:56-57; Job 31:13-14 39. I Cor. 13:5; I Tim. 6:4 40. Num. 11:29; Matt. 21:15 41. Ezra 4:12-13 42. Jer. 48:27 43. Psa. 35:15-16, 21; Matt. 27:28-29 44. Jude 1:16; Acts 12:22 45. Rom. 1:31; II Tim. 3:3 46. I Sam. 2:24 47. II Sam. 13:12-13; Prov. 5:8-9; 6:33).
What is The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology?
It is primarily a concise, 137-word statement on the person and work of Christ. The statement also includes twenty-five articles of affirmation and denial. Each article has Scripture proofs.
From the FAQ:
What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.
From the FAQ:
What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.
This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.
While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.
From the Explanatory Essay on The LIGONIER STATEMENT on CHRISTOLOGY:
Paragraph labeled FOR WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION
Ligonier humbly offers this statement for the church. From the early centuries, Christians have used creeds in the church’s liturgy. It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose.
Your point? Is it offered as a creed or a statement?
Since we want to be PRECISE and actually use our minds carefully, an offered statement is not a creed. It can become a creed but is not so at the offering. Think with your minds and not your emotions. Do they hope their statement will be adopted by those who have ecclesiastical authority so to do? Yes. Is it a creed as offered? They explicitly deny this. One may argue that they are confused but to impute motives to elders when the witness of their own hand denies their imputed intent would be chargeable in a Church court and I would assume that an elder would understand this.
In the quote Brett gave it explicitly says, "It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose" as the creeds of the early church in the worship of the people of God.
Now whether or not we should be using creeds in worship at all is a different question, but it seems obvious that is how Ligonier wanted it to be used.
From the FAQ:
What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.
From the FAQ:
What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.
Rich does our ecclesiastical body of the PCA have a responsibility to correct any content of the statement since RC is a pastor in good standing in our denomination? Or should we (I am speaking of the presbytery) simply leave it alone knowing it is simply a statement of a organization that is not accountable to any particular body?
I am asking this in all sincerity.
Semper Fidelis,
I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.
So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that would be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.
Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.
LOL.Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.
What is the hope for the use of this statement in the church?
Ligonier is not a church or an official ecclesiastical body. We are a ministry that seeks to serve the church by providing helpful resources that God’s people can use as they grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. More than forty years ago, the Ligonier Statement on Inerrancy was a catalyst for conversation. Those conversations grew and led to the creation of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Christology Statement represents the work of ministers of the gospel working to restate historic, orthodox Christology. What happens next is up to other organizations and ecclesiastical bodies. We desire to steward faithfully the resources we have to serve the church.
This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.
Semper Fidelis,
I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.
So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that would be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.
Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.
Not to presume to speak for Rich, but I think you are missing the distinction he is making here. A creed is issued by an ecclesiastical authority and is binding on the churches in light of that authority. The statement that Ligonier made is merely being offered up to the churches and can only become binding, and thus a creed, upon acceptance by churches in whom ecclesiastical authority rests.
What I have reacted to in this discussion is Semper Fidelis' anger and resentment towards people criticising Ligonier for this action. I entered this discussion because from what he was saying, I thought Semper Fidelis believed they did have the authority to issue creeds. To discover, as it would appear, that he doesn't believe this I'm left confused as to what his point actually is. As I say, I don't think they did it maliciously but I do think it's unwarranted and damaging and, yes, presumptuous. And the fact is, they themselves hope this document will be taken up by the church to be used as the older creeds have been. I just don't understand why Semper Fidelis refuses to take them at their word and feels the need to use doublespeak to defend Ligonier.
Semper Fidelis,
I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.
So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that would be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.
Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.
Not to presume to speak for Rich, but I think you are missing the distinction he is making here. A creed is issued by an ecclesiastical authority and is binding on the churches in light of that authority. The statement that Ligonier made is merely being offered up to the churches and can only become binding, and thus a creed, upon acceptance by churches in whom ecclesiastical authority rests.
Bill,
I see your point. To clarify: I don't think Ligonier themselves think they are on a par with the Westminster Assembly or one of the Ecumenical Councils. But I would disagree with you that a document only becomes a creed when it is issued by an authorised ecclesiastical authority. A creed is a specific type of document that summarises the faith in a list of articles. Just as a catechism is a document which summarises the faith in a question and answer format and so on. A catechism is a catechism whether it's officially adopted or officially delivered or not; a creed the same. I think, really, in all due respect to yourself, it becomes semantics to say that a document is only a creed when delivered by an authorised body. This document has been drawn up like a creed; it's been delivered in reference to previous creeds; and it's delivered with the hope it will function as those creeds. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Personally, I see this as more another example of the unthinking, ahistorical spirit alive in the church today: it's 2016, time for another statement on Christology. I'm not saying the motivation behind the production of this specific document is nefarious, or that Ligonier is trying to seize control of the Protestant faith. What it is is muddled thinking; ecclesiastically unsound, arising from ecclesiastical ignorance; and another manifestation of a larger desire today to keep producing new confessions, which I do think is suspicious and dangerous.
What I have reacted to in this discussion is Semper Fidelis' anger and resentment towards people criticising Ligonier for this action. I entered this discussion because from what he was saying, I thought Semper Fidelis believed they did have the authority to issue creeds. To discover, as it would appear, that he doesn't believe this I'm left confused as to what his point actually is. As I say, I don't think they did it maliciously but I do think it's unwarranted and damaging and, yes, presumptuous. And the fact is, they themselves hope this document will be taken up by the church to be used as the older creeds have been. I just don't understand why Semper Fidelis refuses to take them at their word and feels the need to use doublespeak to defend Ligonier.
I appreciate your reasoned, conciliatory tone and I hope you are not offended by my response. And I would just wish others could be as civil.
Alexander,
I have learned many things during the past five years of participating on this board, and one of the things I have learned is that Rich is very passionate and will argue vigorously for what he believes in. It is easy to be offended by this, as I once was, but if you will take a step back and consider what he is saying, you will find that you can learn a great deal from him. That does not mean that you must always agree with him, but you should not assume that he is attacking you merely because he is forceful and passionate.
Isn't there some way of putting "ripping your face off" in some Aussie abbreviated way that ends in "ie"?
I have fond memories of vegemite and bickies at your home in 2007.
I have fond memories of vegemite and bickies at your home in 2007.