[h=1]Intinction and Extinction: Where is Our Good Faith?
Intinction and Extinction: Where is Our Good Faith? - Reformation21[/h]David B. Garner
I admit that I might not fully understand all that is going on concerning these issues but I thought this was pretty good. Here are some portions taken from the blog post.
I think he is correct guys if I am understanding him. It isn't that we need to rewrite anything as much as we need to recognize what is clearly written already and stand on those things.
If the Church would just act and stand upon the overtly clear statements it has already.... well,... I don't know what to say. The words are already plain. Just judicially stand on them.
I really appreciated something Rev. Winzer stated sometime back...
Intinction and Extinction: Where is Our Good Faith? - Reformation21[/h]David B. Garner
I admit that I might not fully understand all that is going on concerning these issues but I thought this was pretty good. Here are some portions taken from the blog post.
To the surprise of some of my fellow elders in my Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) presbytery, I voted against the proposed language change to the Book of Church Order 58-5 concerning intinction.(1) It is not because I believe or practice intinction. In fact, in my estimation, the exegetical and historical arguments against intinction deliver a knockout blow.
...Drop Adam and dip your bread in your wine. Adam is extinct, let's intinct... (I just thought this was a bit funny)
...It is no wonder that confessionally-wise PCA presbyteries like Westminster are concerned enough to pen in thesi statements. They are right to be disturbed. Should we not join them in reinforcing constitutional language, fortifying our commitments by declarative affirmations?
It is no wonder there surged a new anti-intinction language proposal. Churches in our denomination do practice intinction and already stretch the language of BCO 58 beyond breaking point. Should we not strengthen it with more explicit language?
Surely, it is thought, more clarifying words will save the day, preserve orthodoxy, and turn back the tide of cultural and academic compromises. For the peace and purity of the Church, we must speak, defend, and clarify. It sounds right. It sounds compelling. It surely intends faithfulness and integrity.
As good as they seem, I fear the tactics will fail. They may well backfire.
Don't misunderstand. I do not oppose BCO language changes. Believe me, there are changes that need be made and many of them I have advocated and supported. There are many times I'm tempted to lead the charge....
Intinction and historic Adam (and we could add, among other things, paedocommunion here) are debates altogether different. That our Standards and Constitution already speak directly, forcefully, and unambiguously about these points of doctrine and practice suggests that the problem is not the words. Attempts at clarifying what is already clear suggest that what is clear is not clear. Redundant statements neither reinforce nor clarify. They dilute. Redundant statements neither reinforce nor clarify. They dilute. Redundant statements neither reinforce nor clarify. They dilute. ...
...Exacerbating the problem, the "theology of nice" has turned faith confession into a matter of good intent, rather than good content...
...We must recognize the problem in the mirror: the problem is not the Confession, but we, the confessors. The problem is not the Constitution, but its advocacy.
I think he is correct guys if I am understanding him. It isn't that we need to rewrite anything as much as we need to recognize what is clearly written already and stand on those things.
If the Church would just act and stand upon the overtly clear statements it has already.... well,... I don't know what to say. The words are already plain. Just judicially stand on them.
I really appreciated something Rev. Winzer stated sometime back...
While there are men who conscientiously act with the vows of God upon them there is obviously going to be a group of people who maintain, assert, and defend every article of the confession which they have subscribed with their own hand in the sight of God and men. And why shouldn't they? Afterall, they not only promised to the church that they would do so, but the church also promised her support and nurture in the process.
The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust.