Sacramental Efficacy

[Scott Bushey]

Being ignored even though I have cut the FV theology to the quick for Joseph

It's not about election, sovereignty or even PC; it's about justification. This is exactly why I asked you about the other abberant groups/cults; all of them mess that doctrine up in the same way as the FV guys. They may have many of the other orthodox doctrines rigjht, but mess up justification and you no longer have Christianity.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by PAIN IN THE NECK]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by DTK
So no, none of these men (as far as I know) reject the historical understanding of the "elect" in the more narrow sense, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they have broadened the meaning of the "elect" so that it somehow includes some who are "elect" but who can nonetheless become non-elect, and it is that specific aspect of the position of the writer I cited that enables him to assert that all the baptized are in union with Christ, possessing all the blessings that flow from that, except the grace of perseverance for those "elect" who fall away and become "non-elect." Now, maybe you don't find that troubling, but I do.

Pastor King,

Thank you for your additional post. It confirms for me that I did correctly understand your first post. You obviously don't think that my response answered your post, so I apologize for my own lack of clarity. I will try again.

I do not quite agree that the author you quoted has "broadened the meaning of the 'elect' so that it somehow includes some who are 'elect' but who can nonetheless become non-elect." --- However, I must admit that when I first read that particular chapter from which you quoted, I got the same impression you did. Initially, that particular chapter infuriated me. --- But then, I took the time to correspond with Steve Wilkins, and to research some of his related writing on the subject.

Here is what I think is meant by the author you quoted:


1) God's eternal decree regarding who will be saved, and the specific term "elect" are two different things.

Thus, the author has NOT denied that that every member of Heaven will be there by God's predestining grace alone. God is NOT an Arminian. Wilkins affirms God's Sovereign predestination.


2) Perseverance IS a gift from God. However, it is a gift within the sphere of his Sovereign, predestining, eternal decree, and it NOT a gift specifically given within the sphere of the author's definition of "election".

The particular chapter you quoted is only talking about the covenant-of-grace side of things, not the God's-eternal-decree side of things, so that is why it appears on the surface to deny the Perseverance of the Saints. But according to Wilkins' theology, the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints belongs in a different context - a context within which he was not interacting in that one chapter.


Thus, if I understand Wilkins correctly, based on more than just the one chapter from which you quoted, he has not denied any Reformation doctrine concerning predestination or the perseverance of the saints. Rather, he has retained these doctrines, but has placed them into different categories than you or I are used to.

You and I believe that the word "election" is coextensive with God's eternal decree of predestination, and with God's guarantee of persevering grace.

Wilkins agrees with you and me on God's eternal decree of predestination, and on God's guarantee of persevering grace. However, he does not think that the word "elect" belongs in this category. Instead, he believes we should use the word "elect" to refer to the current historical membership within the covenant of grace.

I think you and I would both agree that there are both elect and nonelect members in the covenant of grace. It just so happens that Wilkins chooses to call all covenant-of-grace members "elect". --- Thus, it's a semantics issue, and not a doctrinal issue.

I disagree with his confusing terminology. But it does not appear to me that Wilkins has actually denied any of the core orthodox doctrines about which we are currently speaking.



Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that I agree with you, and with the WCF. I do not personally believe that we should go around redefining all these terms. I think the FV people are largely responsible for the confusion people have regarding their views. They should have been much more clear, and much more careful.




[Edited on 11-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
Being ignored even though I have cut the FV theology to the quick for Joseph

It's not about election, sovereignty or even PC; it's about justification. This is exactly why I asked you about the other abberant groups/cults; all of them mess that doctrine up in the same way as the FV guys. They may have many of the other orthodox doctrines rigjht, but mess up justification and you no longer have Christianity.

Scott, I agree with you and with the WCF regarding justification.

And I agree with you that the doctrine of justification must be fiercely guarded. Whenever I think someone has messed up the doctrine of justification, I get angry too, just like you.

But I am also aware that sometimes people don't make themselves clearly understood. Other times, people are clear, but others still don't understand them, because they aren't paying close enough attention: One case in point is Martin Luther. He wanted to throw out the book of James because he thought it denied the doctrine of justification by faith alone.


Scott, what would you do if you were reading a book, and found that some FV guy said, "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." ?

Would you anathematize that guy, and call him a heretic? Would you accuse him of denying the faith?

Well, if so, then congratulations for following in Martin Luther's footsteps . . . you would have just managed to chop James 2:24 out of your Bible.

But you and I both know that James DID believe in justification by faith alone. Rather, James was just talking about justification in a different sense. He wasn't even addressing the same issue that Paul was addressing in Romans 4. James 2 and Romans 4 are not in contradiction.


If I were convinced that FV people believed what you say they believed, then I would anathematize them too. But my current opinion is that you are misunderstanding them, similar to the way that Martin Luther misunderstood James 2.

(Of course, in this case, I would agree that much of the confusion is the fault of the FV people. They should have been much more clear and careful.)



However, I also want to add this important point:

I fully recognize my own fallibility. And thus, it is possible that I am the one who misunderstands the FV people, and not you. So while I am opinionated, I am also listening. If I can be shown that Doug Wilson, or Steve Wilkins, or Mark Horne, etc., have genuinely denied sola fide, then I will jump on your bandwagon and will anathematize them too. --- I totally agree with you that we must protect sola fide, and I am adamantly opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. I just have not yet been convinced that the FV people are on the RC side, rather than our side.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Joseph,
Have you read Knox seminary's Colloquium? My (mis)understanding is the same interpretation as : Pipa, Phillips, White et.al. Have they as well misunderstood? Is justification by faith alone that difficult? I could understand the difficulty if they were trying to transliterate it from some aboriginal tribe or something like that; there could be a difficulty in doing that. However, we all here speak the same language; so whats the difficulty? I will tell you, they are redefining something that has for centuries been defined and defended. There answer to all of this, "You just don't understand what we are saying". Rubbish. I will be the first to say, along with the RPCGA/Sproul, it is heretical and they need to recant of the error.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by PAIN IN THE NECK]

 

[DTK]

Mr. Gleason,

It is clear to me that we are poles apart, even in how we read and understand language. I'm not going to play these games, since I have better things to do with my time. I'm not up to trying to score petty, meaningless points.

Wishing you the best,
DTK

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by DTK
Mr. Gleason,

It is clear to me that we are poles apart, even in how we read and understand language. I'm not going to play these games, since I have better things to do with my time. I'm not up to trying to score petty, meaningless points.

Wishing you the best,
DTK

I wish you the best, as well, Pastor King.

I think it is worth my time to determine whether I have truly misunderstood my brothers in Christ, or whether there are truly wolves among the sheep. But if you have "better things to do" with your time, then by all means, go for it.

I tend not to believe that it is "petty" and "meaningless" to defend our brothers in Christ from unfair charges of heresy. But if you disagree, that is your prerogative.

I respect you, as well as your right to post the opinions you have posted. But I agree with you that we are poles apart in our current understanding of the issue.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
Joseph,
Have you read Knox seminary's Colloquium?

As a matter of fact, Mike Lawyer (Doug Wilson's assistant) said that I should read that book, and he even sent me a free copy. I have started on that book, but have not yet finished it. I have not read enough of it to be able to respond to your questions concerning that particular book.

However, I have read "The Federal Vision" edited by Wilkins and Garner. And I have read "Reformed is Not Enough" by Doug Wilson. I have read some articles online. And I have corresponded with Wilson's assistant, and with Wilkins, to learn from the horse's mouth just what they do believe and do not believe.


Maybe they do believe what you say they believe. But they sure came across differently to me.


I have read some online articles critiquing the FV. But are there any good full-length books that are focused on critiquing the FV? If you know of any, please let me know. I would be happy to read them.




[Edited on 11-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
Joseph,
Have you read Knox seminary's Colloquium?

As a matter of fact, Mike Lawyer (Doug Wilson's assistant) said that I should read that book, and he even sent me a free copy. I have started on that book, but have not yet finished it. I have not read enough of it to be able to respond to your questions concerning that particular book.

However, I have read "The Federal Vision" edited by Wilkins and Garner. And I have read "Reformed is Not Enough" by Doug Wilson. I have read some articles online. And I have corresponded with Wilson's assistant, and with Wilkins, to learn from the horse's mouth just what they do believe and do not believe.


Maybe they do believe what you say they believe. But they sure came across differently to me.


I have read some online articles critiquing the FV. But are there any good full-length books that are focused on critiquing the FV? If you know of any, please let me know. I would be happy to read them.




[Edited on 11-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

Joe,
I suggest not reading that vague ambiguous garbage; there is much better historical documents on justification to be had.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

Joe,
I suggest not reading that vague ambiguous garbage; there is much better historical documents on justification to be had.

Fret not. I read the Reformers and Puritans.

I just read other stuff too, in order to educate myself about current issues in the church.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Joe,
Is there anything new under the sun? Has God used history to preserve his church, His word, His doctrine? Do we need anything new? Is FV new?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
Joe,
Is there anything new under the sun? Has God used history to preserve his church, His word, His doctrine? Do we need anything new? Is FV new?

You make it sound like I am pro-FV. I am not. I just don't think we should anathematize them.

As for there being "nothing new under the sun", I think you are confusing the *existence* of orthodoxy with the proper *codifcation* of orthodoxy.

Since you think there is never anything "new" under the sun, in this sense, please do me a big favor:


1) Show me a clear definition of Trinitarian doctrine written by the church BEFORE the 4th century. Shoot, why did we even need Nicea and Constantinople?

2) Show me a clear example of someone teaching the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement in the first thousand years of the NT church. Why did it take so long for the church to get clear on this issue? Was the Holy Spirit not with the early church?

3) Demonstrate an early church example of sola fide being taught, which is on the level of accuracy and clarity attained by the Reformers and Puritans.



You see, Scott, the whole argument against that which is "new" is a red herring. Rome used the same argument to suggest that the Reformed sola fide doctrine was wrong. I have heard the same "newness" argument used by Pelagians in an attempt to deny the penal substitutionary atonement.


Maybe the FV is all washed-up and looney. Maybe not. But I don't think your "newness" argument holds water.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The RPCGA says that Fv denies justification by faith alone. The PCA hammer has not yet come down. However, the majority of the PCA is noton board with FV, as is the OPC. So, the majority of orthodox communities see's consistantly that FV denies justification by faith alone. All the other groups that deny this doctrine you freely call heretical, no?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
The RPCGA says that Fv denies justification by faith alone. The PCA hammer has not yet come down. However, the majority of the PCA is noton board with FV, as is the OPC. So, the majority of orthodox communities see's consistantly that FV denies justification by faith alone. All the other groups that deny this doctrine you freely call heretical, no?

Yes, any group that denies justification by faith alone is heretical.

And if any FV person denies justification by faith alone, then that person is heretical, too.

But take Wilson, just for example. Has he denied justification by faith alone? I think not. But if he ever does, then I will join you in anathematizing him.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
The RPCGA says that Fv denies justification by faith alone. The PCA hammer has not yet come down. However, the majority of the PCA is noton board with FV, as is the OPC. So, the majority of orthodox communities see's consistantly that FV denies justification by faith alone. All the other groups that deny this doctrine you freely call heretical, no?

Yes, any group that denies justification by faith alone is heretical.

And if any FV person denies justification by faith alone, then that person is heretical, too.

But take Wilson, just for example. Has he denied justification by faith alone? I think not. But if he ever does, then I will join you in anathematizing him.

Do the orthodox presbyterian community by and large say that FV denies J by F alone?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
The RPCGA says that Fv denies justification by faith alone. The PCA hammer has not yet come down. However, the majority of the PCA is noton board with FV, as is the OPC. So, the majority of orthodox communities see's consistantly that FV denies justification by faith alone. All the other groups that deny this doctrine you freely call heretical, no?

Yes, any group that denies justification by faith alone is heretical.

And if any FV person denies justification by faith alone, then that person is heretical, too.

But take Wilson, just for example. Has he denied justification by faith alone? I think not. But if he ever does, then I will join you in anathematizing him.

Do the orthodox presbyterian community by and large say that FV denies J by F alone?

Scott, I'll tell you what. Read this statement by one particular FV guy.

YOU tell me where he misses the mark on sola fide. You tell me *specifically* where he crosses over into heresy. Maybe it's there, but I certainly don't see it.

Be specific, and stop throwing around generalizations about "orthodox presbyterians" and "FV" people. Rather, tell me what problems YOU have with the particular sola fide statement above.

Point out the guy's error, and I will gladly pay attention to what you say.




[Edited on 12-2-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
The RPCGA says that Fv denies justification by faith alone. The PCA hammer has not yet come down. However, the majority of the PCA is noton board with FV, as is the OPC. So, the majority of orthodox communities see's consistantly that FV denies justification by faith alone. All the other groups that deny this doctrine you freely call heretical, no?

Yes, any group that denies justification by faith alone is heretical.

And if any FV person denies justification by faith alone, then that person is heretical, too.

But take Wilson, just for example. Has he denied justification by faith alone? I think not. But if he ever does, then I will join you in anathematizing him.

Do the orthodox presbyterian community by and large say that FV denies J by F alone?

Scott, I'll tell you what. Read this statement by one particular FV guy.

YOU tell me where he misses the mark on sola fide. You tell me *specifically* where he crosses over into heresy. Maybe it's there, but I certainly don't see it.

Be specific, and stop throwing around generalizations about "orthodox presbyterians" and "FV" people. Rather, tell me what problems YOU have with the particular sola fide statement above.

Point out the guy's error, and I will gladly pay attention to what you say.




[Edited on 12-2-2005 by biblelighthouse]

Joseph,
Did you read the Colloquium? How about you read that first and then we'll talk........
Here's the problem, as with any abberant teaching, there is confusion. This is the concern; FV is viral, silent and insidious. The major problem is that they use similar language, but mean something historically different.

I will quote Calvin Beisner of Knox:

One thing that became clear through the coloquium papers and discussions is that the Federal Visionists are using some traditional terms in non traditional ways, and that this has caused some misunderstanding. Although some of the responsibility for the misunderstanding rests with their critics, who often have failed to notice this, some undoubtedly rests with with the Federal Visionists for not making their distinct, nontraditional definitions explicit in the contexts in which they use them.

As far as pointing out Horne's error; it is not that easy based upon the semantics. The RPCGA website clearly defines the errors; have you visited there?
I am sure you are aware that Lousiana's Presbytery cleared Auburn Ave:

http://www.louisianapresbytery.com/AAT-FV_final.htm

Have you read Knox's request to the Louisiana presbytery? Notice the confusion over terminology that Knoxs professors bring to light........
http://www.knoxseminary.org/downloads/louisiana response.pdf

Again, if we are talking apples and oranges, why the confusion, why a needed colloquium? It is not every day that you see the orthodox Presbyterians wrestling to the extent that they are wrestling over doctrines such as these. Does that not raise a flag?

As I mentioned, My pastor and my church, as well as our presbytery, reject federal vision as error. If you are looking to discuss federal vision, I can promise you that you and I will not come to any conclusions on it here on this forum. Wiser men than us are struggling and some of them are actually dealing with it. One of the problems is that a good number of leaders do not know what to make of it. They do not know how to treat it theologically; they have never had to squeeze the grey matter to the degree that FV requires. It's slight of hand; a shell game. I have sat with men whom theologically tower over me; could I have dealt with it alone? Probably not. One pastor told me, leave it to us Scott, thats our job, not yours! To a degree, I agree with him.

By the way: Since you linked me to Horne's 'Theologia', were you the one responsible for informing Horne that I was speaking about FV here on PB? My quote is out on his blog.
All for now.



[Edited on 12-2-2005 by PAIN IN THE NECK]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

Joseph,
Did you read the Colloquium? How about you read that first and then we'll talk........

Fair enough. It will be a little while before I have time to pick it back up. I'm reading some other stuff at the moment, for my seminary classes.

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

The RPCGA website clearly defines the errors; have you visited there?

I'll see if I can track down the URL so I can take a look . . . unless you already know it and can give it to me.

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

I am sure you are aware that Lousiana's Presbytery cleared Auburn Ave:

http://www.louisianapresbytery.com/AAT-FV_final.htm

Yes, I'm aware of that, but for some reason that doesn't impress you. Apparently when a large region of the church agrees on something, it only impresses you if you already agree with them.

But as for me, I am impressed that the Lousiana Presbytery cleared AA, and I am also impressed that the denomination you are in has condemned AA. I think I should carefully consider *both* sides of that coin, rather than arbitrarily choosing to listen to one side while ignoring the other.

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

Have you read Knox's request to the Louisiana presbytery? Notice the confusion over terminology that Knoxs professors bring to light........
http://www.knoxseminary.org/downloads/louisiana response.pdf

I have not read that yet. But I would be happy to read it. It looks like there is some more homework for me.

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

By the way: Since you linked me to Horne's 'Theologia', were you the one responsible for informing Horne that I was speaking about FV here on PB? My quote is out on his blog.

Nope. I just found out about your quote being there on his site, and so I started poking around on there, and then I found that link on his site. That's why I posted the link on here for you to read.

I did not tell him about your FV post.




[Edited on 12-2-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

But as for me, I am impressed that the Lousiana Presbytery cleared AA, and I am also impressed that the denomination you are in has condemned AA. I think I should carefully consider *both* sides of that coin, rather than arbitrarily choosing to listen to one side while ignoring the other.

Then it should also matter to you that one PCA Presbytery has contradicted the LA report, another has adopted the same report as its own, one PCA Presbytery has issued a call to the PCA General Assembly to take direct jurisdiction over Wilkins (thus bypassing LA Presbytery) and several other PCA Presbyteries have study committee reports coming out critical of the FV in the next couple of months.

I believe that you will see in the next year that the FV has virtually no support in the broader church, but rather that its ubiquitous presence on the internet is what has given it any credence.

I would also encourage you to obtain and read Dr. Guy Water's book on the Federal Vision when it is available next spring from P&R.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Joe,
Statements like this are silly:

Apparently when a large region of the church agrees on something, it only impresses you if you already agree with them.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I have come to a very strong conviction in recent days to give up all theological debate over such issues as the Federal Vision controversy, NPP, etc. I have done much reading and studying in regards to them, and find them to be obvious, blatant, historical and Biblical error (and in some cases, heretical, while in others, just not "reformed", but erroneous). However, I am under the conviction that it is not my place, as a layman in the Church, to tackle these issues head on. I am in submission to my Session, and will follow their guidance and submit to their leadership and theological advice/standpoints, as all Reformed and Presbyterian laypeople should. The internet is a disease on the Church, and aside from places like this, there is no good to come from open, unaccountable theological discussion. The keys of the kingdom have been given to ordained ministers of Christ's Church, and I will submit to their authority. Just wanted to air that out. Those who enjoy being haphazard about changing and fluctuating between theological positions month by month can continue to do so, but I would prefer to take God's Word and the knowledge of him (theology) a great deal more seriously, by spending far more time examining doctrine and having a firm understanding of orthodoxy before I even worry about controversial matters. More importantly, I wish to focus on my sanctification and how I treat others in the love of Christ as I desire to serve in Christ's Church some day. /vent

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Our pastor preached in the communion service today on 1 Peter, and what it means to be ELECT. Apparently, 1 Peter is not found in Steve Wilkins' bible, as his definition of "elect" is nowhere near biblical. Peter teaches that those who are ELECT have the following:

- the sanctification of the Spirit
- obedience to Jesus Christ and are sprinkled with his blood
- born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
- an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven
- guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed
- salvation of the soul

Whether or not he believes there is a group of people who posses these qualities doesn't matter. What matters is he is taking a BIBLICAL, along with theological term and redifining it according to his extremist view of covenant-ish theology, and doing so with much ambiguity, confusion, and doing so as an act of obvious and blatant division, controversy and departure from the orthodoxy of not only the PCA but the orthodox Church historically as a whole.

 

[BJClark]

turmeric,

Thank you for that article, I forwarded it to my aunt and asked if any of the local pastors there go to the visit their elderly members and offer communion, and suggested if they don't maybe she could contact her pastor and ask him if He would go give communion to my grandmother who is in a nursing home.

[quoteI got a different insight into the Table of the Lord as a means of grace when one is no longer able to experience God through the Word due to dementia here

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

What good does the Lord's Supper do to an invalid?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
What good does the Lord's Supper do to an invalid?

Gabe, if you READ the article she posted, then you will find out!

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Then it should also matter to you that one PCA Presbytery has contradicted the LA report, another has adopted the same report as its own, one PCA Presbytery has issued a call to the PCA General Assembly to take direct jurisdiction over Wilkins (thus bypassing LA Presbytery) and several other PCA Presbyteries have study committee reports coming out critical of the FV in the next couple of months.

I believe that you will see in the next year that the FV has virtually no support in the broader church, but rather that its ubiquitous presence on the internet is what has given it any credence.

Fred, that is some very interesting information about which I was not aware. Thank you for sharing it with me!

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I would also encourage you to obtain and read Dr. Guy Water's book on the Federal Vision when it is available next spring from P&R.

Thank you very much for the recommendation. I look forward to reading it!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

FYI, a review of Guy Waters current book (Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul) by J.V. Fesko, with a response from Waters and reply from Dr. Fesko will appear, D.V. in the 2006 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian. The current issue (2005) is available at http://www.cpjournal.com. It has been on sale for $15 but is going back to $18 for US subscribers as soon as I get the website changes made this morning. I will post contents and availability for the 2006 issue sometime in February 06 Lord willing.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Private Communion

A post above raised the issue of taking communion to an individual and administering it outside the normal public worship of God. What are folks' thoughts on this (maybe should be a new thread?)? I researched this some time back when working on the text for WCF 27 for a critical text of the Standards (still under way). This is what I found and summarized for a note at 27.3:

PCUS(1963) deleted "œbut to none who are not then present in the congregation." (2) ARP(1959) adopted note "˜h´ (see Appendices, p. ), allowing for carrying and administering of the Lord´s Supper to "œworthy persons" unable to attend public services. In this country, as early as 1835, Samuel Miller allowed for this with careful qualification. American churches since then allow it with varying restrictions, addressing the issue otherwise than within the Confession itself. In his commentary on the Confession, G. I. Williamson summarizes the necessary qualifications for the practice: "œThe sacrament of the Lord's Supper may be administered in private homes, provided there is an assembly of believers, and provided there is faithful preaching of the Word and the administration of church discipline in that place also." See: RPCNA Testimony at 29.4; OPC Directory for the Public Worship of God (2000) IV.A.3; PCUSA Book of Order 2002-2003, W-2.4010; PCA Minutes of the 7th General Assembly (1979) 102; Samuel Miller, D.D. Presbyterianism the truly primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 90-92; G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) 223-224.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I already READ the article and it is emotionalistic garbage.