The "Call to Reformation", which is a call to "liberation," is predicated on a wrong premise (see previous post). A thing predicated on a wrong premise has no validity. One must first prove his premise.
It is unfortunate that the word "liberation" is used in this context. The word brings to mind, of course, the liberation of '44. That liberation was necessary since extra-biblical and extra-confessional doctrines had been bound upon the churches. The recent synods' decisions to enter into ecclesiastical fellowship with several other Reformed churches in NA did not bind extra-biblical and extra-confessional doctrines upon the churches. One may disagree with the decisions, but to put forward the wrong premise (that these churches have an open table, and that by these decisions we have embraced the principle of an open table), and then to call for liberation from the decisions, is not right.
Again: one must first prove his premise before he issues such a call.
It is unfortunate that the word "liberation" is used in this context. The word brings to mind, of course, the liberation of '44. That liberation was necessary since extra-biblical and extra-confessional doctrines had been bound upon the churches. The recent synods' decisions to enter into ecclesiastical fellowship with several other Reformed churches in NA did not bind extra-biblical and extra-confessional doctrines upon the churches. One may disagree with the decisions, but to put forward the wrong premise (that these churches have an open table, and that by these decisions we have embraced the principle of an open table), and then to call for liberation from the decisions, is not right.
Again: one must first prove his premise before he issues such a call.
