<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Amazing Spiritual and Converting Power of the WCF!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/</link>
	<description>The cyberstalkable freelance writer making retractions on the web since 2000.... Oops, 1993?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:37:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-442488</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:38:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-442488</guid>
		<description>The above links a great statement by Robert Shaw about how a Confession can and should be properly used by a Church.  This is, sadly, still smudged together with the idea of a &quot;lens&quot; which is obviously exactly the &quot;rule of faith&quot; that Shaw and the Confession and the Bible condemns.  But despite that erroneous use of Shaw&#039;s words, his comments are quite good.  I reproduce them here:

&lt;blockquote&gt;The Christian Church, as a divine institution, takes the Word of God alone, and the whole Word of God, as her only rule of faith; but she must also frame and promulgate a statement of what she understands the Word of God to teach. This she does, not as arrogating any authority to suppress, change, or amend anything that God’s Word teaches, but in discharge of the various duties which she owes to God, to the world, and to those of her own communion. Since she has been constituted the depository of God’s truth, it is her duty to him to state, in the most distinct and explicit terms, what she understands that truth to mean. In this manner she not only proclaims what God has said, but also appends her seal that God is true. Thus a Confession of Faith is not the very voice of divine truth, but the echo of that voice from souls that have heard its utterance, felt its power, and are answering to its call.

And, since she has been instituted for the purpose of teaching God’s truth to an erring world, her duty to the world requires that she should leave it in no doubt respecting the manner in which she understands the message which she has to deliver. Without doing so the Church would be no teacher, and the world might remain untaught, so far as she was concerned. For when the message had been stated in God’s own words, every hearer must attempt, according to the constitution of his own mind, to form some conception of what these words mean, and his conceptions may be very vague and obscure, or even very erroneous, unless some attempt be made to define, elucidate, and correct them. Nor, indeed, could either the hearers or the teachers know that they understood the truth alike, without mutual statements and explanations with regard to the meaning which they respectively believe it to convey.

Still further, the Church has duty to discharge to those of its own communion. To them she must produce a form of sound words, in order both to promote and confirm their knowledge, and also to guard them against the hazard of being led into errors; and, as they must be regarded as all agreed, with respect to the main outline of the truths which they believe, they are deeply interested in obtaining some security that those who are to become their teachers in future generations shall continue to teach the same divine and saving truths. The members of any Church must know each other’s sentiments—must combine to hold them forth steadily and consistently to the notice of all around them, as witnesses for the same truths; and must do their utmost to secure that the same truths shall be taught by all its ministers, and to all candidates for admission. For all these purposes the formation of a Creed, or Confession of Faith, is imperatively necessary; and thus it appears that a Church cannot adequately discharge its duty to God, to the world, and to its own members, without a Confession of Faith.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The above links a great statement by Robert Shaw about how a Confession can and should be properly used by a Church.  This is, sadly, still smudged together with the idea of a &#8220;lens&#8221; which is obviously exactly the &#8220;rule of faith&#8221; that Shaw and the Confession and the Bible condemns.  But despite that erroneous use of Shaw&#8217;s words, his comments are quite good.  I reproduce them here:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Christian Church, as a divine institution, takes the Word of God alone, and the whole Word of God, as her only rule of faith; but she must also frame and promulgate a statement of what she understands the Word of God to teach. This she does, not as arrogating any authority to suppress, change, or amend anything that God’s Word teaches, but in discharge of the various duties which she owes to God, to the world, and to those of her own communion. Since she has been constituted the depository of God’s truth, it is her duty to him to state, in the most distinct and explicit terms, what she understands that truth to mean. In this manner she not only proclaims what God has said, but also appends her seal that God is true. Thus a Confession of Faith is not the very voice of divine truth, but the echo of that voice from souls that have heard its utterance, felt its power, and are answering to its call.</p>
<p>And, since she has been instituted for the purpose of teaching God’s truth to an erring world, her duty to the world requires that she should leave it in no doubt respecting the manner in which she understands the message which she has to deliver. Without doing so the Church would be no teacher, and the world might remain untaught, so far as she was concerned. For when the message had been stated in God’s own words, every hearer must attempt, according to the constitution of his own mind, to form some conception of what these words mean, and his conceptions may be very vague and obscure, or even very erroneous, unless some attempt be made to define, elucidate, and correct them. Nor, indeed, could either the hearers or the teachers know that they understood the truth alike, without mutual statements and explanations with regard to the meaning which they respectively believe it to convey.</p>
<p>Still further, the Church has duty to discharge to those of its own communion. To them she must produce a form of sound words, in order both to promote and confirm their knowledge, and also to guard them against the hazard of being led into errors; and, as they must be regarded as all agreed, with respect to the main outline of the truths which they believe, they are deeply interested in obtaining some security that those who are to become their teachers in future generations shall continue to teach the same divine and saving truths. The members of any Church must know each other’s sentiments—must combine to hold them forth steadily and consistently to the notice of all around them, as witnesses for the same truths; and must do their utmost to secure that the same truths shall be taught by all its ministers, and to all candidates for admission. For all these purposes the formation of a Creed, or Confession of Faith, is imperatively necessary; and thus it appears that a Church cannot adequately discharge its duty to God, to the world, and to its own members, without a Confession of Faith.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Lens of Confessions Revisited &#171; Green Baggins</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-442368</link>
		<dc:creator>The Lens of Confessions Revisited &#171; Green Baggins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-442368</guid>
		<description>[...] FVer accuses Lane of quasi-Roman Catholic theology, a recurring theme from that quarter. Another declares the use of the Standards as a lens Romanism, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] FVer accuses Lane of quasi-Roman Catholic theology, a recurring theme from that quarter. Another declares the use of the Standards as a lens Romanism, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stewart Quarles</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-439736</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Quarles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-439736</guid>
		<description>re  #16

Good stuff, Mark.  That pretty much nails it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>re  #16</p>
<p>Good stuff, Mark.  That pretty much nails it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Romanism, Presbyterian style &#171; &#8220;THE AVENUE&#8221; &#8211; from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-439697</link>
		<dc:creator>Romanism, Presbyterian style &#171; &#8220;THE AVENUE&#8221; &#8211; from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-439697</guid>
		<description>[...]   Romanism, Presbyterian&#160;style August 18, 2009   Mark Horne has written a couple of fine posts here and here regarding the new move by some conservative Presbyterians to become Romanists without [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]   Romanism, Presbyterian&nbsp;style August 18, 2009   Mark Horne has written a couple of fine posts here and here regarding the new move by some conservative Presbyterians to become Romanists without [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-439663</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:38:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-439663</guid>
		<description>&quot;merely sitting down with his Bible, as if he did not have any prejudices and was completely neutral&quot;

You are making up stuff.

It is still rank heresy to claim that another document must serve as the lens to give us a right interpretation of Scripture.  It attributes the Spirit&#039;s work in a document that is not inspired, when the Spirit has promised to guide the Church using Scripture.

It is a violation of what the WCF explicitly says about a &quot;rule of faith.&quot;

It is all heretical nonsense.  The WCF is not the lens.  The WCF does not claim to be the lens.  No Westminster Divine ever used it as a lens.  The WCF says it may not be used as a lens.  &quot;Neutral&quot; autonomy is not the necessary alternative to such a lens.  No one is claiming to be presuppositionless for contradicting you by affirming the Protestant doctrine of Scripture.

God has written the lens for interpreting Scripture and it is Scripture.  God has given a teaching ministry to the Church that is not exclusively located in the WCF.  Rather, the WCF is to be looked at through the lens of Scripture.  On Judgment Day, that will be the question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;merely sitting down with his Bible, as if he did not have any prejudices and was completely neutral&#8221;</p>
<p>You are making up stuff.</p>
<p>It is still rank heresy to claim that another document must serve as the lens to give us a right interpretation of Scripture.  It attributes the Spirit&#8217;s work in a document that is not inspired, when the Spirit has promised to guide the Church using Scripture.</p>
<p>It is a violation of what the WCF explicitly says about a &#8220;rule of faith.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is all heretical nonsense.  The WCF is not the lens.  The WCF does not claim to be the lens.  No Westminster Divine ever used it as a lens.  The WCF says it may not be used as a lens.  &#8220;Neutral&#8221; autonomy is not the necessary alternative to such a lens.  No one is claiming to be presuppositionless for contradicting you by affirming the Protestant doctrine of Scripture.</p>
<p>God has written the lens for interpreting Scripture and it is Scripture.  God has given a teaching ministry to the Church that is not exclusively located in the WCF.  Rather, the WCF is to be looked at through the lens of Scripture.  On Judgment Day, that will be the question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dgh</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-439662</link>
		<dc:creator>dgh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:18:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-439662</guid>
		<description>Mark, it&#039;s also hard to believe that Van Til would ever countenance the autonomous rational self of yourself merely sitting down with his Bible, as if he did not have any prejudices and was completely neutral.  I really don&#039;t think you want to appeal to Van Til.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, it&#8217;s also hard to believe that Van Til would ever countenance the autonomous rational self of yourself merely sitting down with his Bible, as if he did not have any prejudices and was completely neutral.  I really don&#8217;t think you want to appeal to Van Til.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-439656</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:20:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-439656</guid>
		<description>Unbelievable.  The WCF is our presupposition?  Can anyone imagine what Cornelius Van Til would say to such a thing.  Or B. B. Warfield?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unbelievable.  The WCF is our presupposition?  Can anyone imagine what Cornelius Van Til would say to such a thing.  Or B. B. Warfield?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Do we need new lenses for our hermeneutical glasses? &#171; Letters from Mississippi</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-439655</link>
		<dc:creator>Do we need new lenses for our hermeneutical glasses? &#171; Letters from Mississippi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-439655</guid>
		<description>[...] the other extreme, Mark Horne accuses Green Baggins&#8217; position of establishing a kind of Protestant Magisterium  all of its [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the other extreme, Mark Horne accuses Green Baggins&#8217; position of establishing a kind of Protestant Magisterium  all of its [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alicia</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-439627</link>
		<dc:creator>Alicia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-439627</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that a high view of the Church is one that defers to her, but recognizes she is capable of error, and is willing to criticize and exhort her according to Scripture when there appears an irresolvable tension between the two.  Not one that blindly submits to ecclesiastical authority without holding that authority accountable to Scripture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that a high view of the Church is one that defers to her, but recognizes she is capable of error, and is willing to criticize and exhort her according to Scripture when there appears an irresolvable tension between the two.  Not one that blindly submits to ecclesiastical authority without holding that authority accountable to Scripture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.hornes.org/mark/2009/08/15/the-amazing-spiritual-and-converting-power-of-the-wcf/comment-page-1/#comment-439624</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hornes.org/mark/?p=3953#comment-439624</guid>
		<description>Okay.... I thank you for spelling out the issues.  I don&#039;t think my conclusion was creative at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay&#8230;. I thank you for spelling out the issues.  I don&#8217;t think my conclusion was creative at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
