I'm still reading this thing, and want to understand it thoroughly. I have read enough, at this point, to note that they disdain biblical exegesis of implied meaning as "weak" and therefore insufficient to counter their arguments for women's ordination. At one point, they quote the esteemed Jefferson Davis on slavery as a way of arguing their point. It is evident that their thinking is clouded.
First of all, it is the Reformed position that Biblical truth is equally authoritative be it expressly stated or derived by "good and necessary consequence."* Now, the reformers knew the laws of Logic; they were classically educated. They knew that there was such a thing as a bad use of Logic. They believed that if something in Scripture could be proven by "good and necessary consequence", not just any consequence, then it was to be held. In this, they follow the example of the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 22 when he confronted the Saducees for not knowing the Scriptures. Jesus quotes a verse that has nothing expressly to do with the Resurrection and holds the Saducees at fault for not seeking the appropriate "good and necessary consequence" of God's word.
Secondly, the irony of the Jefferson Davis quote is that Davis is listing express statements of Scripture! The Bible expressly affirms what Davis is saying. Therefore, to use Davis as an example of the weakness of implied meaning of Scripture is for the authors of this paper to turn their argument upon its own head. Indeed, it was the implications of Scripture that lead to the Christian position against slavery! The authors of this paper on women's ordination are failing to use "good and necessary consequence" in their arguments and therefore - at least in this portion of their paper - failing to prove their position.
* Vide The Westminster Confession of Faith, I. vi.
First of all, it is the Reformed position that Biblical truth is equally authoritative be it expressly stated or derived by "good and necessary consequence."* Now, the reformers knew the laws of Logic; they were classically educated. They knew that there was such a thing as a bad use of Logic. They believed that if something in Scripture could be proven by "good and necessary consequence", not just any consequence, then it was to be held. In this, they follow the example of the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 22 when he confronted the Saducees for not knowing the Scriptures. Jesus quotes a verse that has nothing expressly to do with the Resurrection and holds the Saducees at fault for not seeking the appropriate "good and necessary consequence" of God's word.
Secondly, the irony of the Jefferson Davis quote is that Davis is listing express statements of Scripture! The Bible expressly affirms what Davis is saying. Therefore, to use Davis as an example of the weakness of implied meaning of Scripture is for the authors of this paper to turn their argument upon its own head. Indeed, it was the implications of Scripture that lead to the Christian position against slavery! The authors of this paper on women's ordination are failing to use "good and necessary consequence" in their arguments and therefore - at least in this portion of their paper - failing to prove their position.
* Vide The Westminster Confession of Faith, I. vi.
Comments