<<I reject Jim's implication that basing one's views on something like the
Westminster Confession is somehow unScriptural.>>
I understand what you're saying, so let me clarify. Terry did not cite
Scripture, but the WC, as "authority." Van Till cites Augustine. I would
rather see Scripture FIRST (always). These extra-biblical sources may then be
used as commentary, but only to the extent they do justice to Scripture. I
don't contend that the views are NECESSARILY unscriptural, only that the
process of formulating doctrine should flow FROM Scripture as the wellspring.
I think Terry may be reading a tad too much into the WC for his position. I
still haven't read the Augustine work Van Till relies upon, so I can't comment
on that. I have read other sections of Augustine that seem to contradict the
view, but until I read everything I must withhold judgment.
<< In my pilgrimage from
Arminianism to Calvinism -- a process which took 7 or 8 years -- one of the
chief factors which attracted me to the Westminster Confession was the
painstaking way the Westminster Divines who wrote in the 1640's had
documented their assertions from Scripture.>>
Of course, as a Calvinist, you had no choice but to switch. ;-) Interestingly,
my journey from Calvinism to Arminianism was based primarily on my reading of
Scritpure, specifically an inability to get around the universality of grace
(e.g., 1 John 2:2, Titus 2:11, etc.) I then found commentary quite helpful,
especially Clark Pinnock and Jack Cottrell.
Christianity is the original big tent, isn't it?
Jim