A Reply to Dr. Hart
If you havent checked out De Regno Christi before, now is a good time to check it out. Its a group blog by guys in the Reformed and Presbyterian Circles, they have a good mix of differing oppions on most issues.
Darryl Hart is a regular, so is Peter Leithart, and they have recently ask Doug Wilson, seen by many as the Brian Mclaren of the Federal Vision (Kinda the spokes man kinda not). Because of this recent discussion the blog has just taken off 2000 visits in one day.
On the subject of the Federal Vision Dr. Hart recently had a post that would seem to suggest the Frame’s understanding of biblicism is some how tied to the Federal Vision movement.
Here is my reply to Dr Harts comments on the issue:
Dr. Hart you said ““Scripture” properly means the interpretation of Scripture; that is, the contents of Scripture as reached by human investigation and exegesis.”
It seems like the question comes down to when do we have to go to the primary sources and when can we rely on our secondary standards.
Would you argue that Calvin was wrong in disagreeing with Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis? Who decides who gets to disagree with whom and when? Do we look at the reformation brush off our hands and say “well that settles it”, because they certainly did not look back to the men before them and brushed off their hands.
You did cite WCF 31.2, but what about WCF 31.4 “All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but
to be used as a help in both.” Isn’t this the definitive complement to 1.10?
Hart’s Original post can be found here: Frame’s Creative Children