The following was a comment Dr. Mark Thompson made in response to my article:
Hi Charlie,
I think we have been here before, but let me state as unequivocally as I can:
1. I affirm unreservedly the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.
2. I affirm unreservedly biblical inerrancy. I do not believe Scripture has erred in anything it teaches. What is more, I have never suggested we should not question those who question inerrancy. In fact, quite the opposite!
3. I affirm unreservedly propositional revelation (and acknowledge that this propositional revelation comes to us in a variety of genre in the biblical material). I believe that the Scriptures are objective revelation from God, given through the agency of active human writers and all God-breathed.
4. I am not into irrationality, just a humble recognition that in my case, my reason is affected by the Fall like every other faculty of mine and so needs to be subjected to the authority of Scripture.
5. My concern in my post was not ecumenical conversation so much as the practice of some within the reformed evangelical camp to draw a tighter and tighter doctrinal circle around themselves that in the end they end up echoing Elijah: 'I, only I, am left'.
6. I value the creeds and confessions as the consensus of Christians and a secondary authority under Scripture (to say Scripture is the final authority is not to say there are no other authorities, just that they must be subject to Scripture).
7. To infer from my comments that the door is open to the possibility that myself, Moore Theological College, or the Diocese of Sydney is sliding towards neo-orthodoxy, irrationalism, relativism or the endorsement of homosexual behaviour (against which Scripture speaks clearly and repeatedly) is both inaccurate and inappropriate.
8. I think I am closer to Luther than you are willing to admit and I would consider myself a systematic theologian who is thoroughly committed to biblical theology.
9. I most certainly believe that the reprobate and unconverted person is under God's wrath while being at the same time part of the world which God so loved he sent his Son.
10. I do not believe I have ever declared war against the Calvinist doctrines of particular election and particular atonement. Quite the opposite! I certainly did not make it a requirement of fellowship that all should accept Amyraldianism or Arminianism.
11. As for the place of persuasion, I believe I was simply echoing Paul in 2 Corinthians 5. Perhaps both Cornelius van Til and Gordon Clark would also see the importance of this stance?
Charlie, I am very happy for you to take me to task. After all, a major part of my post was my own concern to be open to being shown — from the authoritative Scriptures! — that I am wrong. I just do not like being misrepresented when you have access to many things I have written which, I believe, demonstrate my commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture as the word of God (yes, I believe it IS the word of God written) and to the structures of Reformation Anglicanism as a faithful expression of what the Bible teaches.
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify where I stand.
Mark
Posts
1 comment:
Unfortunately, Dr. Thompson's alleged "humility" in the matter of the noetic effects of sin on the mind is really a round about way of saying that we cannot understand the logical propositions of the infallible Scriptures sufficiently well to settle theological disputes. The Westminster Confession of faith makes it clear that natural revelation cannot save and that Scripture can be understood by logical deduction:
Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scripture
1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;1 yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation:2 therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;3 and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;4 which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;5 those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.6
See also: WLC 2 | WSC 2
--------------------------------------
1 Rom. 2:14,15; Rom. 1:19,20; Ps. 19:1,2,3; Rom. 1:32; Rom. 2:1.
2 1 Cor. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:13,14
3 Heb. 1:1
4 Prov. 22:19,20,21; Luke 1:3,4; Rom. 15:4; Matt. 4:4,7,10; Isa. 8:19,20.
5 2 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 1:19
6 Heb. 1:1,2
****
6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.1 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word;2 and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.3
-------
1 2 Tim. 3:15,16,17; Gal. 1:8,9; 2 Thess. 2:2.
2 John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:9,10,11,12.
3 1 Cor. 11:13,14; 1 Cor. 14:26,40.
Post a Comment