« Home | Next: One Year Today »
| Next: What happened??? »
| Next: Do you ever wonder... »
| Next: Church Discipline – What’s needed when it’s needed... »
| Next: Church Discipline – Adjusting the Focus »
| Next: A Touchy Subject »
| Next: An Important Current Event »
| Next: Blogging and Church »
| Next: Faith and Humor »
| Next: Time Out »





Feed Link

Study Help

Real Help

    Needed Prayers



About Kc



    "You are really cool you are married to an European!! How cooler can you be??"
    Fisherman Pecheur

    "Smarty Pants"
    Mad Matt

    "Oh, you did not ask for Bonhoeffer's opinion did you? You wanted mine..."
    the SOFYST

    "You are like the master at this "feelings" stuff!
    Kind Kristi

    "I enjoy your comments, but they are always delightfully enigmatic"
    Dyspraxic Fundamentalist

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

The Belgic Division

Read all about it at JP's Mind.



Blogger Joe said...

That was a very attention getting dialog.

To me, creeds and "formalized statements of faith" are very open to misunderstanding and therefore somewhat dangerous.

I like to think my creed is Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.

But that's a bit pompus.

Then, say some, so am I.


4/04/2006 06:24:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Joe thanks for checking out that article. I suppose being pompus is a necessary virtue when you're always right (hehe).

I agree with your assement on creeds and statements of faith and if we all accepted your creed (Gen. to Rev.) then we could discuss it without having to clarify what "we" mean when "we" make our statements.

4/04/2006 06:57:00 AM  
Blogger dorsey said...

I just destroyed your credibility over there by siding with you. Sorry.

But then I went on to wax completely heretical, so you still have an opportunity to distance yourself.


4/04/2006 07:45:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Dorse if you can't destroy the testimony of a friend then who else? ;-)

4/04/2006 07:58:00 AM  
Blogger Kristi said...

It seemed a bit stuffy over there, so I opted to stay out of the discussion! Good article though.

4/04/2006 07:59:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Krisit you get back there and voice your opinion! (hehe) I know there may have been a little heat over this article but you're right it's a great one as is most of the stuff at the Rev's site. ;-)

4/04/2006 08:08:00 AM  
Blogger Kristi said...

okay. fine. I did it.

4/04/2006 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger Kristi said...

P.S. Your Protestant Pub link has two http://'s... just so you'll know! =)

4/04/2006 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Kristi I knew your thoughts would add to the discussion! ;-)

(thanks for letting me know about the Pub link! It's fixed now)

4/04/2006 10:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Timothy said...

There was too much stuffiness over there for me to finish reading it all... I have to agree with Kristi. I think the writers of the BC and the WCF which has similar writing are saying that the Bible does contain the complete will of God... in that, it contains the complete "revealed" will of God. In other words, there is no more revelation today, nothing forth coming to be added to Scripture. They do distinguish between God's revealed will, which is found solely in Scripture, and providential or mysterious will (Deut. 29:29), which works out through creation. In other words, I could not tell that it was God's will for me to write to you today, until I did it. Then it was God's will, sovereignly worked out. But before writing, I know that it is God's will that I love my neighbor, for it is declared in His Word. The written, or revealed will aspect is a closed book. His providential will is not closed or seen, until it happens. So when they write: We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely, it means the revealed will of God. They are writing against those who would come along and add to it, or say something that is contradictory to Scripture, as the Christians Scientists do, Mormoms do, etc.

In that sense, I agree with the writers of the BC and the WCF. The 66 books we have do contained the will of God completely... Hope this helps

4/05/2006 04:23:00 PM  
Blogger Kc said...

Pastor thanks for checking out the link. I still think the article, as written, is at best flawed. Even supporters have to add their own qualifications before they can agree to it but I do agree with your understanding of the Bible.

4/05/2006 06:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Timothy said...

Remember what they were writing against in their day, the Roman Catholic Church and it's authority to usurp Scripture. The Catholics were saying that they could determine what God's will was. We must remember the context of the battles they were fighting. When we view documents such as these only with the lenses of a 21st century American, white male christian, we will miss this. The documents make perfect sense in their day, and in ours when we remember the battles that were being fought that brought about the documents.

No, the documents are not inspired, but they are a useful tool to us. As I tell people in our inquirer's class, the WCF is our filing cabinet for what we believe and why. The Bible is the authority and cannot be changed, but the WCF is a tool that can be changed if it is deemed wrong. It's only been changed a few times. And one of them, I disagree with... the part about the pope being the antichrist... I really liked that part... :)

BTW, your page is really looking great. I love the picture of you...

4/06/2006 09:13:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Pastor thanks really very much and we mostly agree with the exception of the Pope. I am an equal opportunity resenter when it comes to any who dare to rule over my Lords Church. ;-)

4/06/2006 10:03:00 AM  

Post a Comment