Friday, January 18, 2008

Strike a blow for the redemptive-historical hermeneutic

I don't know much, if any, of the background of what took place down at Coral Ridge. What is included in this published decision by the elders at Coral Ridge Presbyterian church is very enlightening. I don't agree with everything that happens down at Coral Ridge PC. But... at the very least, what we have here is a session that is publicly on record as saying that the redemptive-historical hermeneutic *is* confessional, something that up to this point has, in some quarters, been a begrudging admission.

Reading between the lines of this published decision, Knox Theological Seminary apparently attempted to suspend Dr. Warren Gage (author of "The Gospel of Genesis") over his understanding that the typology of Scripture isn't always explicit. In its decision that effectively overturned the Seminary's board, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, which has oversight of the seminary, sided with Gage and with Vos and with Ridderbos and with Clowney. The church session says Gage's "hermeneutical approach is within the mainstream of historic Reformed biblical interpretation, in accord with the writings of Reformed scholars like Geerhardus Vos, E.J. Young, Meredith Kline, O. Palmer Robertson, and Herman Ridderbos." The Session also considered the scholarly opinion of Dr. Edmund P. Clowney..."

As one who empathizes with Gage's viewpoint as it is stated here, it's heartening to see a published decision like this point out the obvious: Gage's hermeneutic is not "weird" or "bizarre". It is a hermeneutic in fact developed and shared by Reformed scholars such as Vos and Ridderbos (interesting that Gaffin's name is not included?).

Here are the pertinent paragraphs:

"Dr. Gage said he could not agree not to set forth any typology except that which is explicit in the Scriptures. After a full hearing, discussion and deliberation, the Session determined that WCF 1:9 does not require that the use of typology be limited to what is explicit in Scriptures. Instead, the Session found that WCF VII:5 speaks much more clearly to the issue by indicating that there are a great many types, all of which point to Christ.
Article VII .5 provides:

“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.”

"The conflict between Article VII .5 of the WCF and a restraint on typology as adopted by the Board and imposed on Dr. Gage required action by the Session to protect the integrity of the Seminary’s adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The restraint imposed by the Board and delivered to Dr. Gage and to the Session was in writing in the following form:
Dr. Gage...[Condition] 1) Must agree not to set forth any typology except that which is explicit in the Scriptures. For example: Jesus' teaching on the Road to Emmaus does not include specific Old Testament references. We may not speculate on how and where Jesus used the Old Testament.

"This restraint is simply in conflict with the much broader view of typology expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, VII. 5 (above). The restraint had been proposed by an Anglican bishop in the early nineteenth century, but it is not a doctrine of the Reformation.
Furthermore the language in Condition 1 above, as formulated by the Knox Board has been declared unacceptable and non-reformed by such scholars as Patrick Fairbairn (Typology of Scripture) and Louis Berkhof (Principles of Biblical Interpretation). The Session maintains the Board’s action was a deviation from our historic reformed hermeneutic (interpretation) and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

"The Session rejected the idea that the WCF compels adherence to Condition 1, finding persuasive the opinions expressed in a letter from Dr. Dominic Aquila, the President of New Geneva Theological Seminary, in which he states that, "Dr. Warren Gage's writing, teaching and preaching are in conformity and in accord with these principles of Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology. His hermeneutical approach is within the mainstream of historic Reformed biblical interpretation, in accord with the writings of Reformed scholars like Geerhardus Vos, E.J. Young, Meredith Kline, O. Palmer Robertson, and Herman Ridderbos." The Session also considered the scholarly opinion of Dr. Edmund P. Clowney, the late Reformed theologian and first president of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, PA), as it related to Condition 1. Dr. Clowney wrote, “Only the lack of hermeneutical method can shut us up to recognizing types only where the New Testament itself explicitly recognizes them.” (Preaching and Biblical Theology, pp. 111- 112). Dr. Clowney’s statement clearly supports the position of the Session." -- Statement of the CRPC Session Regarding the Recent Suspension of Dr. Warren Gage by the Knox Theological Seminary Board of Directors


Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks the former Knox board's decision to suspend Dr. Gage was because he was teaching Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics or Typology clearly does not know the facts. His chief theological critics at Knox--(now former) board members R.C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, and Cortez Cooper, and faculty members Robert Reymond, Fowler White, and I--all affirm and use RH and T and admire it in Vos and many others. That should prompt people to ask what else we saw in Dr. Gage's teaching that we found wanting. The central issue was that his particular, peculiar use of RH and T involves a contradiction of WCF 1.9, which says that the full and true sense of any scripture (not the whole Bible, which Dr. Gage made it out to be in his defense before the CR session) is not manifold but one. Secondarily, his recorded classroom lectures included many comments denigrating logic, systematic theology, and apologetics, saying that these cause a "sickness of soul" and a "fragmented soul" in theologians that blinds them to the presence of Christ throughout Scripture and caused the failure of the Reformation based on Romans and Galatians and justification by faith alone, making necessary a new reformation based on Revelation and Dr. Gage's claim that the Whore of Babylon IS the Bride of Christ. There were additional matters, but this should suffice to indicate that the common notion that Gage was opposed at Knox because he is into RH and T is false. That he was able to get the CR session to commit the same fallacy of confusing whole (RH and T) with parts (his peculiar use of RH and T) does not make his error any less real.

E. Calvin Beisner, Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Social Ethics, Knox Theological Seminary, 2000-2007

Breuss Wane said...


Like I said, there was much to read between the lines there. There are always two sides to every story. My point was that this is the first time in recent memory where the RH hermeneutic’s understanding of typology is specifically cited as the point of conflict.

However, given I myself have been accused of contradicting WCF 1.9 I don't find Gage's understanding of RH and T all that peculiar. In fact, when I hear this, it makes me wonder about those who claim to "admire" Vos, Ridderbos and others and whether they really understand what Vos and the others were/are getting at. Gage's understanding of RH and T is no different than the authors listed by the session... and *that* seems to be the point the session was making in their statement. Perhaps it could be shown where Gage is not of the same RH and T school as Vos and Ridderbos. Due to my own personal experience, I have my doubts that that is the case. The problem isn’t merely Gage. It’s also Vos, Ridderbos, Kline, Clowney, (and Gaffin, and Horton, and D. Johnson) etc. etc. because Gage isn’t interpreting scripture (at least as I can determine from this statement) any differently than they.

To wit: the multi-layeredness of the text of scripture due to the presence of the metanarrative does not contradict WCF 1.9. The interpretations are not multiple. They are one, but yet unfolding as further and clearer revelation through the course of redemptive history. And I would be at a loss as to how anyone who is amil or postmil wouldn’t also run afoul of such a strict interpretation of 1.9.

Obviously I cannot comment on what Gage was giving in the classroom... I'm limited to what has been published by the session. And obviously, again, there are always two sides. Vos was clear that while biblical theology was the primary hermeneutic, systematic theology was the beneficiary of BT’s exegesis. Given the way I see (and hear) ST idolized in Reformed pulpits, I supposed I would express caution about the role of ST to those who would someday fill those pulpits. BT and ST need each other. But ST is the result of BT.

Thanks for stopping by to give us the other perspective. It is always good to consider the entire backdrop for what can be a stale and non-contextualized document.

Breuss Wane said...

I would add that, again, although I cannot comment on what specifically was said in the classroom that time and again I see in the hermeneutics of the people writing the books and preaching in the pulpits an eclipse of Christ in the whole of scriptures by ST and an overemphasis of the grammatical historical hermeneutic.

Every Sunday morning, Christ is eclipsed in reformed pulpits across this country precisely because typology is ignored or misunderstood. Moralism reigns in our evangelicalism because Christ is not presupposed as the metanarrative to which every passage of scripture points. I've said it many times on this blog... I'll say it again here: our exegesis and our preaching must pass the offended Orthodox Jew test. If an orthodox or religious Jew is not offended by how I understand and proclaim the scriptures (esp. the OT), then I have not rightly preached the text.

Now, Gage may have been saying something differently or something more than that... but when I hear that, my heart resonates with what I think he is trying to say, even if what he said came out wrong.

Anonymous said...


Granted that, as you state, you don't know what Gage was saying in the classroom, you are dependent entirely on what the session said about him. In contrast, Sproul, Phillips, Cooper, White, Reymond, and I have read extensive transcripts of his classroom comments, and three of us have been his colleagues for four years or more. Until you have firsthand knowledge of what he said on which we based our criticisms, you might be wiser to limit yourself to inquiry, not advocacy.

In Christ,

Breuss Wane said...

I find your criterion (first hand knowledge) for "advocacy" (which I don't believe I'm doing here) untenable... and I'm guessing there would be a few instances in which you yourself would find that to be untenable.

I'm an advocate for "Christ in all of Scriptures" as was Vos, Ridderbos, Clowney, etc. I'm an advocate for the RH hermeneutic. If Gage is saying the same thing, I'm an advocate, not for Gage, but for his understanding of interpretation. I don't think having only that document (we do have his great book on protology, Gospel in Gensis) precludes anyone from being an advocate for what it purports to be Gage's hermeneutic.

And I should add that you are expecting me to take your word for it over the session's. Given only one side has published (and that side is a church session), I'm not sure I'm inclined to mute what can or might be said about the RH hermeneutic in this instance. I'm no stranger to the political environs of an education institution. The presupposition in statements like "if you only knew what we know" is that if we did know what you know we would see things differently. My experience for the most part has been the opposite. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing if I knew what you knew my opinion wouldn't change.... not because I'm blind to the data, but because I disagree about the nature, circumstances, and veracity of that data (IOW, I might agree with everything Gage said and whether or not it comports with WCF 1.9).

IOW, going back to an earlier response, my experience resonates with what the session has written about Gage and WCF 1.9. And my comments should be understood in that light. I'm not endorsing everything Gage said or did; I'm merely pointing out the church session's ruling that Vos, Ridderbos, & Gage comport with WCF 1.9.

Breuss Wane said...

>caused the failure of the >Reformation based on Romans and >Galatians and justification by >faith alone

On the flip side... if I heard this in my classroom, I would begin to ask questions. :-)

I don't know what the context of the above statement is specifically, but I do realize that there are those using the RH hermeneutic to call into question critical biblical teaching on atonement, imputation, justification, esp. in the Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul camps. But the problem isn't with the RH hermeneutic or typology. Nor is the problem with the metanarrative. The problem lies with conclusions drawn from the typology and metanarrative that the scriptures themselves are not drawing.

I've posted excerpts on hermeneutics from one semi-well known FV writer here. The thoughts are well stated and help make very plain *how* RH understands the Old Testament. But the writer is dead wrong when it comes to where that RH leads him.

Joe Branca said...


Not suer if you've seen this, but this online article co-authored by Dr. Gage does mention his specific complaint with the Reformation's neglect of Revelation, and he works out his thesis that Revelation must be taken as a continuum of the themes begun in John.

The John-Revelation Project

He makes a lot of compelling, interesting points, some of which I'm still mulling over.


Breuss Wane said...


Thanks for providing this link. It has been a long time since I visited this project... I'll have to go back and view it through the "new" lens of what Cal says here.

One interesting thing... Rowler White is visibly part of the project and he is mentioned here as one who resigned. Obviously, there are other things going on here. Which is why I think we have to just read the session's statement for what it's worth at the present... taking into account Cal's exhortation/admonition.

At the end of the day, if our ecclesiology means anything, until another Presbytery raises a complaint about this session's actions, we are left with understanding this as a dispute over the redemptive historical hermeneutic and typology. I've seen far too many church-schools as tails wagging the dog.

I have the utmost respect for the men listed, including Cal. Their contribution to our present Reformed context can't and shouldn't be underestimated. But these are six men... and this is a church session and a presbytery. Those of us looking on the outside in, in the lack of all the facts, cannot do anything but take the statement at face value if our ecclesiology is biblical not to mention confessional.

Steve said...

I have the utmost respect for all the men at Knox, but as Joe just stated Fowler White, who is still at Knox, was on the John/Revelation project with Warren Gage, and both of them taught coferences together. I have stated this before and noone has ever addressed this, but Warren Gage's typology was being used before he was a faculty member. I understand the issue of a former students complaint that was used to investigate Warren Gage, but I am still somewhat suspicious. If they were concerned with his hermeneutical system, why did they hire him? His position has always been the same.

John said...


Your question presupposes that people are static, and that what one taught ten years ago is exactly what one is teaching now. But if that were the case, there would not be any need to reaffirm explicit commitment to the WCF each year as Knox professors are required to do. Why do you suppose they are required to do that? I submit that it's because Dr. Kennedy recognized (as any confessional seminary should) that views and teaching can change over time, sometimes for the better and frequently for the worse.

It seems to me that the obvious is being ignored here. You ask, "If they were concerned with his hermeneutical system, why did they hire him?" To which I would say, "Exactly!" Does not the fact that they hired him, the author of The Gospel in Genesis (which as you allude to was assigned reading in at least one Knox class before Dr. Gage was ever hired there) pretty conclusively demonstrate that whatever the concerns are about Dr. Gage, they're not based in some irrational fear and loathing of typology or redemptive-historical hermeneutics per se? Doesn't the fact that the other teacher who worked with him on the John-Revelation Project is now deeply concerned about Dr. Gage's hermeneutic again conclusively demonstrate that the concerns about him are not based on some simplistic objection to mere typology or redemptive-historic hermeneutics, but rather on something that is perceived to have more recently developed in Dr. Gage's teaching?

Think about the obvious. Knox hired him. Fowler White worked on the John-Revelation Project with him. R.C. Sproul engaged him to write articles for "Tabletalk" magazine. And now they all have major concerns about his hermeneutical method. Did they all just suddenly realize, "By golly, Warren Gage is doing typology! We can't have that!"
Or, given the facts, isn't it much more likely that a cause for concern has recently cropped up in Dr. Gage's teaching that wasn't there before, and that the opposition to him is not based on some irrational fear of Vos- or Clowney-like interpretation of the Scriptures?

If you give it even a moment of thought, the fact that something has developed in Dr. Gage's teaching that wasn't there before is the only possibility that makes sense of the evidence. The fact that the theologians on the board of the seminary were quickly overruled by the non-theologians on the church's session in favor of a man who is very personally popular in the church does not change the fact that people who once saw great value in Dr. Gage's teaching and hired him and worked with him have recently developed substantial concerns. If people and teaching are purely static, those concerns can be dismissed. If they are not static, it seems to me that we should consider the possibility that something has changed that bears investigation. (And it seems obvious, despite those who have disputed it here, that such an investigation should be close and careful, and not primarily carried on by those who have no real idea of what was being taught nor what the real objections were).


Breuss Wane said...

Actually, John, your answer is reason to be all the more skeptical of the board and those who resigned. Most disappointing is the academic elitism inherent to the comment "non-theologians on the church's session".

Like I said before, those of us on the outside looking in, if we are to be true to the primacy of the church as it is found in scripture, are bound to take the session's word over the board's.

What we have here are a session that says it was a hermeneutical disagreement and a board that admits it was a hermeneutical disagreement. And unless the board wants to be as public about its finding as the session has been, it would seem that the session disagrees with the board as to whether or not the hermeneutical "problem" is a "problem".

And...I would hope that none of our hermeneutics are the same as they were 10 years ago. It's called growth. And in Gage's instance, it could be that Vos was being more consistently applied.

What resonates with me in the session's published decision (not with Gage himself) is the dispute over WCF 1.9 and Vos more consistently applied in the hermeneutic (not to mention I empathize with the criticism of systematic theology as causing a "sickness of soul"... too often I have found this to be evident in those who do not see Christ as the raison d'etre of scripture).

This dispute at Knox smacks of the same kind of debate between John Carrick and William Dennison a few years back at the conference in Greenville where Carrick voiced appreciation for RH while at the same time criticizing its specific hermeneutic (Carrick was dead wrong in suggesting the text is "anthropocentric"). Having read *much* of the work of the others on that board, none of those names would I consider to be all that RH or Vosian (while still being great theologians). Thus, it would not surprise me that they *might* voice objection when exposed to one who, like Dennison, more consistently applies Vos in his exegesis. So rather than "prompting us to ask what else the board saw in Gage's teaching", given the session's identification of the RH hermeneutic as being the point of dispute, it does prompt us to wonder how far that affirmation of RH and typology really goes in those who are crtical of Gage. Given what the session has said, we're left to wonder whether someone like William Dennison (or his brothers Charles or James), Greg Beale, Dennis Johnson, the late Meredith Kline, Richard Gaffin, or even the late Ed Clowney would have been welcome in that environment.

John said...


While it may seem "elitist" to you, I am not an academic, and so your charge falls flat. I'm simply pointing out the rather obvious fact that the theologians on the board and faculty of the seminary who spent hundreds of hours going over it might perhaps have had some insights that the laypeople of the session lacked when they voted within a couple of days to overrule the board (and whether anyone is "bound to take the session's word over the board's" at this point is still very much open to question, since according to the non-binding opinion of the PCA's stated clerk, the session appears to have violated the BCO in their action). I fully agree that the (former) Knox board's silence in the matter is confusing and unhelpful, but I expect that more will come to light as this wends its way through the presbytery.

For all of your words, you failed to deal with the substance of my post. The same group that hired Dr. Gage (in several situations no less) became very concerned about him. Is this because they suddenly developed a fear of typology and RH hermeneutics? Not likely.

It seems rather to me that you initially threw out some comments without having much real information, and now feel bound to defend those comments against all common sense. That's your prerogative, of course, but it would be better to look at the facts and not try to make the controversy about something it was clearly not about.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you really do know what the issue is. If so, please point out to us where Dr. Gage was simply applying a Vosian hermeneutic that the board overreacted to. And could you also tell me if Vos suggested a return to the medieval quadriga? Please show me where I can find that?

Breuss Wane said...

>It seems rather to me that you >initially threw out some comments >without having much real >information

Ummm... please read the initial post... again. The information I had was specifically what I was posting about... the session cited the redemptive-historical hermeneutic as the reason for the dispute. That's all the information needed to make a comment about the decision itself. Whether or not subsequent information coming from the board contradicts the opinion of the session is another matter entirely.

Further, regardless of whether or not you are an academic, the argument you made is inherently elitist. You pit "theologians" vs. "non-theologians" and "laity". Elders on a session are *not* laity, by any confessional standard I know of.

I'd also be willing to bet (I could be wrong) Gage didn't call for a return to a specific "medieval quadriga" (IOW, it's been taken out of context); but I would argue that Vos himself posited something very much like the medieval quadriga when he talked about the progress of revelation being like a "seed to flower" (see today's post and the comment by Danny Olinger). Again, the misguided claim against Vos (and against Beale & others) is that he held to multiple interpretations of a text (thus being at odds with WCF 1.9). I could see how someone who doesn't get it or doesn't agree with it would claim that Vos's "seed to flower" hermeneutic, as it is applied to the text, looks kind of like the medieval quadriga (four levels of interpreting a text). Beale has often said that the interpretation of a passage is multi-layered. That does *not* mean that there are multiple interpretations...*one* interpretation the text, but progressively expanded over the whole of the canon.

And for the record, I think I did deal with the substance of your post in my last comment. It could very well be (I could be wrong), based on my experience and my observation of these kinds of debates, that those who hired Gage became very concerned about Gage's hermeneutic because it took them awhile to understand all of the implications of a thoroughly Vosian hermeneutic. An example would be a 5-point Calvinist hired by those who think they are Calvinists who, over time, realize they don't have as much in common with Calvinism (or at least *that brand* of Calvinism) than they thought they had.

Finally, I don't think I'm making the controversy out to be anything. I'm merely fascinated at the decision that was published by the session. It's the first time I've seen the RH hermeneutic cited as the point of contention in an employment dispute like this. Beisner says there's more to it than that. Fine. So far, everything stated here seems to back up what the session was saying about it being about hermeneutics. It's just a difference in perspective, I think.

John said...


You make my point for me. Over the years, people's approaches change. "It's called growth," you say. Well sure, in some cases. And in some cases it's not growth. That's really what's at issue here. To use a bunch of material written long before the fact as proof of someone's doctrinal soundness begs the question at best. That's why we have confessional standards, and it's why Knox (by Dr. Kennedy's direction) does not offer tenure.

And yet in this discussion you continually beg the question on this point. By your own admission, you have no idea what he's teaching in class. You know what you know about Gage from perhaps having read The Gospel in Genesis or a few of the John-Revelation articles online. In other words, your exposure to Dr. Gage's hermeneutic is basically what Knox's was when they hired him. They didn't have a problem with it either at the time, having seen exactly the same things you've seen (and probably quite a bit more.) And you use your admittedly limited exposure to Dr. Gage to proclaim the people who express concern about a new direction in his teaching to be somehow fearful of redemptive-historical hermeneutics in general--even though they hired and approved him on the basis of the very same things that you like about him.

It appears to me what you've done here is taken a paradigm of theological dispute (having read somewhere once about someone who had a problem with RH and typology) and crammed this situation into that mold, all the while admitting right out of the gate that you don't know what he was teaching in class. Is it just possible that what he was teaching in class is precisely the problem here?

You're wanting to make it out as if the former Knox board and faculty just simply couldn't handle RH and typology. Oh, perhaps, naifs that they were, they could take a tiny smattering of it in some articles somewhere, but when they hired Dr. Gage and brought him in and got the real deal, they turned tail and fled because they never really understood or cared for the stuff in the first place. It's a nice, tidy story, but what you're failing to see is that this little narrative you've cooked up doesn't even remotely fit the evident facts. Have you ever read the things Fowler White wrote in the John-Revelation Project? Have you read Robert Reymond's reliance on Vos in his systematic theology? Was Dr. Gage not giving Sproul the "real thing" when he hired him for "Tabletalk"? Are you seriously telling me that these guys just can't handle real typology?

I am just a layman and a former student at Knox. I've taken classes there under Palmer Robertson (who taught there for longer than Dr. Gage has and didn't feel the least bit persecuted as a biblical theologian at Knox). I believe in the Christ-centeredness of Scripture--all the Scriptures. I see Christ as the "raison d'etre of scripture." I just read through Dennis Johnson's book on preaching over the summer, and am rereading sections of it because I found it to be so good. I've read and enjoyed everything (as far as I know) that Clowney's written on the Christ-centered Scriptures. I believe in the seed-to-flower conception of revelation (and learned it from Fowler White, who studied under Kline and Gaffin at WTS, among others, incidentally). I read The Gospel in Genesis and loved it. I took one of Dr. Gage's Old Testament theology classes and was thrilled by it. In fact, I thought it was so good, I enrolled my wife and children in it as auditors. Dr. Beisner has enrolled his own children in Dr. Gage's classes as well. Dr. White has extensively co-taught with him. You're simply barking up the wrong tree when you try to frame this into your pre-selective narrative about fear of RH and typology. There may really be places where that's the case. It's not at Knox, and it's not with the people involved.

What you're doing here is like a guy who drives past a burning house and confidently proclaims that it was caused by bad electrical wiring because you heard about another fire somewhere where that was the cause. That's bad enough, but to proclaim the fire investigators who actually go in to determine the cause "elitists" because they don't affirm your account takes the cake.

Anyway, I've said what I know, so I'll let you have the last word, since it is, after all, your blog. I'm not trying to be contentious. I love truly Christ-centered hermeneutics. But so does everyone I've studied under at Knox. You're simply not doing the situation justice by making it into some imaginary "victory for Vos" against fearful systematicians who refuse to see Christ except in the most obvious places. I don't doubt there are places where this really is a problem. Knox was never one of them. If you don't believe me, ask Palmer Robertson.

Breuss Wane said...

"naifs that they were".

That sword cuts both ways in this conversation. You (and apparently the board) desire us to place that label on the undershepherds of Christ's flock who have been given the responsibility of overseeing the seminary (not the board). I find such an ecclesiology appalling.

And your analogy about the burning house won't fly. Why? Because the session itself has told us precisely what the problem is/was. I'm not imposing my experience onto the situation. The session has published an opinion that resonates with my experience.... which is something altogether different.

I'm glad to hear that you believe in the Christ-centeredness of Scripture. Since the session says that's precisely the problem of the Gage dispute, I can only conclude that Gage was improperly terminated since his hermeneutic, according to the session, is no different than yours. (And, I might add, if you agree with Vos's "seed to flower" then you must also personally believe that the "medieval quadriga" isn't a far-fetched analogy for a Vosian hermeneutic).

AllanFJ said...

The Holy Ghost (who trumps WCF!) said that the REAL meaning of Moses' mere animal husbandry law to Ox owners was that NT ministers should be materially provided for by the congregations. NOTE Paul does not make it an APPLICATION of Moses, but unambiguosly states the LATTER meaning to be why the former law was even written down!

Thus, the Knox Board would disallow the Holy Spirit from among their ranks.