PCA and WCF

[RamistThomist]

Take for instance, the establishment principle were the Divines appeal to Is. 49:23. It is possible to agree with the establishment principle but not agree with their application of this text to it (though I believe that they were right to use this passage in support of the establishment principle).

It's difficult to answer a hypothetical which proves to be correct.

To my mind, knowing that interpretation has advanced somewhat since those days, I would still see valid *applications* of the general principle of a given text, even where I thought the text wasn't speaking directly to the issue.

I think that is exactly what Daniel is saying, or at least trying to get at.

 

[MW]

I think that is exactly what Daniel is saying, or at least trying to get at.

OK. My fault. Only I'm left wondering why that would require someone to take exception.

 

[fredtgreco]

Could one not takes exception to the use of the Johannine comma in WCF 2.2, while upholding the Trinity?

 

[MW]

Could one not takes exception to the use of the Johannine comma in WCF 2.2, while upholding the Trinity?

2:3. With what integrity? The other proof texts teach threeness. Only 1 John 5:7 teaches oneness. The Confession begins, "in the unity of the Godhead..."

 

[fredtgreco]

Sorry about the reference. You don't seriously mean that one cannot be a Reformed Presbyterian unless he subscribes to the authentic nature of the comma, do you? Because then you have gutted out a huge amount of post-18th century Presbyterians.

It would seem to me that I could get the unity of the Godhead from Deuteronomy 6, John 10:30; John 10:49; etc. The doctrine of the Trinity in no way depends on the comma, whether one accepts it as authentic or not.

 

[MW]

Sorry about the reference. You don't seriously mean that one cannot be a Reformed Presbyterian unless he subscribes to the authentic nature of the comma, do you? Because then you have gutted out a huge amount of post-18th century Presbyterians.

It would seem to me that I could get the unity of the Godhead from Deuteronomy 6, John 10:30; John 10:49; etc. The doctrine of the Trinity in no way depends on the comma, whether one accepts it as authentic or not.

There are two levels of discussion here -- exegetical and confessional. I've referred to confessional integrity. Suppose you could establish unity of the Godhead from the other passages, on a confessional level you are faced with the problem that they relied solely on 1 John 5:7 for the proposition. An examination of the writings of the period will demonstrate that they saw the verse as fundamental to the proof of this proposition.

Besides, exegetically, texts which prove one God do not establish unity of Godhead. But if we follow this path we will certainly get off track.