In other words, the FV are comfortable with their views as long as they are not forbidden in the WS, while the TR’s are looking for positive evidence drawn from the WS for orthodox views that are to be held in order to remain within the bounds of the Confession. So that for the TR, if you are holding to a view or doctrine not explicitly set forth in the WS, you would be heterodox, or “outside” it’s boundary.
I’m sure the analogy between the RPW w/ TR’s and the NPW w/ FVer’s breaks down eventually. But the point that FVer’s are comfortable using biblical language to describe objective covenant realities, while these particular usages are not explicitly found in the Confession, and TR’s apparently are not, did seem to fit the anaology to some degree.
More so because FVer’s profess to hold to these definitions along w/ and in concert w/ the more limited definitions of the Confession., since there is no prohibition in the Confession itself forbidding it. And, taken as a whole, I agree with this practice.
Not sure I get it, Mark. I don’t read David’s post as confessing his views as a TR advocate, but rather as observing the (often hidden) rubric applied by the TR in criticizing the FV.
Am I misreading?
No, I think you’re right. David, please forgive my sloppy job reading your post.