biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I love the WCF. And for that matter, there is a lot of really good stuff in the 1689 baptist confession too.
I believe the WCF is an excellent summary of much Scripture. But I do not believe that the WCF itself is inspired. It is not Scripture. But it is a very, very, good manmade document that expounds Scripture very well at most points.
In another forum, one person really got under my skin when he quoted one particular point from the WCF, and then said that the "burden of proof" is on me if I disagree with it. --- I simply asked him to back up his position with Scripture. But he refused me twice, stating that the confession is authoritative, and that he has no need to turn to the Bible itself to prove his case. --- I think this is wrong!!! In my mind, this is hardly different from the pharisees who lifted up their manmade tradition to the same level (or even above) the Word of God.
Everybody on this board (as far as I know) agrees that the WCF is very good in most respects.
But is it *ever* right to just quote the confession in response to a debate, and then to completely neglect any reference to the Bible itself? When in a debate, shouldn't we *always* follow the confession back to the Scriptures, and then use the authoritative Word of God itself?
Let me know your thoughts. I love the WCF and hold to almost everything in it. But I have a real problem with anyone who thinks it's OK to rely on any confession to the point that the Bible itself takes a backseat.
I believe the WCF is an excellent summary of much Scripture. But I do not believe that the WCF itself is inspired. It is not Scripture. But it is a very, very, good manmade document that expounds Scripture very well at most points.
In another forum, one person really got under my skin when he quoted one particular point from the WCF, and then said that the "burden of proof" is on me if I disagree with it. --- I simply asked him to back up his position with Scripture. But he refused me twice, stating that the confession is authoritative, and that he has no need to turn to the Bible itself to prove his case. --- I think this is wrong!!! In my mind, this is hardly different from the pharisees who lifted up their manmade tradition to the same level (or even above) the Word of God.
Everybody on this board (as far as I know) agrees that the WCF is very good in most respects.
But is it *ever* right to just quote the confession in response to a debate, and then to completely neglect any reference to the Bible itself? When in a debate, shouldn't we *always* follow the confession back to the Scriptures, and then use the authoritative Word of God itself?
Let me know your thoughts. I love the WCF and hold to almost everything in it. But I have a real problem with anyone who thinks it's OK to rely on any confession to the point that the Bible itself takes a backseat.