Lest there be any doubt, let me make it clear that I believe that the
Westminster Confession on the points that I mentioned (the God's decree and
providence) expresses the teaching of scripture. The Westminster Standards
are what we call secondary standards, the Bible is the primary standard.
My appeal to the Westminster Confession is not an appeal to authority--it
is an appeal to a formulation that I believe accurately summarizes the
teaching of scripture (and has some long standing recognition as an
accurate reflection of scripture).
I'm not unwilling to enter into the Calvinist/Arminian debate, but I don't
think that this email discussion group is the place--I think Pinnock is
dead wrong on this issue (as well as the scripture issue; if fact, if you
read *The Scripture Principle* carefully you will see that his rejection of
Old Princeton's inerrancy ultimately rests on his rejection of the
Calvinistic view of the sovereignty of God).
I recognize, as I admitted, that some of us land where we do in the origins
discussion because of our conclusions on other theological issues. What I
tire of most is the accusation that my position derives from a desire to be
accomodated to some naturalistic worldview. How absurd--not only do
unbelievers scoff at the Reformed view of God's sovereignty, but most
Christians I know scoff at it too.
Terry G.
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*