Who will derive specific positions from the 3 Forms of Unity?
(Someone asked) …Could you please rephrase your question? I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking. Thanks!
1--People are making political statements. The statements of one oath-bound the the 3 Forms should be derived from them. I don't see such derivation. 2--This lack of use of the foundational document is similar to such lack of use of the foundational document that some mention in the political realm. That is, some say--You can't do 'Y,' it's not in the Constitution. I say, 'Derive your political postions from the documents you vow --by membership -- are foundational to your application of the Bible. 3--I'm also saying that if such are not derivable, they are .... --I ask you, what? -- or that there should be some changes made in the documents, their application, one's vows, etc. For instance, some could argue that #36 of the Belgic applies to church buildings. 4--For example, the writers of the U. S. version of the Westminster Confession of Faith changed one part, if I remember correctly, to NOT say that the magistrate had the authority to call synods. Love in King Jesus, Charles Howard Hartman Thus, specifically,
is there a 'just war' type provision in the 3FU?
(Someone else also made a reply to which I responded) Is one flying blind then, or does one need a more elaborate set of documents, or are the (gasp) in need of more comprehensivity, to put it euphemistically. This came up on another thread.
I am being a little pert here. It seems necessary. It’s what is called a ‘teachable moment.’
Love in King Jesus,
PS: Some may say that the vow is not that kind of vow.
PPS: Let me rephrase this: What should be our position(s), in the present political situations(s), based on The Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, The Canons of Dordt?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity Also seewww.reformed.org.