Westminster catechisms 1st question

[cubanito]

Until last week it seemed to me the shorter chatechism's first q&A: "What is the chief end of man? To glorify and enjoy God forever." which is very similar to the larger catechism "
Question 1: What is the chief and highest end of man?
Answer: Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever. " seemed excellent. Then someone pointed out that is only true of the elect.

Those in Hell do glorify God. Their evelasting punishment testifies to God's Just and Holy character. However, they do not enjoy God.

What say yee?

JR

 

[stenerson]

I think the catechism was referring what the chief aim of man should be. As in, "this should be your chief aim, and what you were created for."

 

[cubanito]

I think the catechism was referring what the chief aim of man should be. As in, "this should be your chief aim, and what you were created for."

Then it ought be ammended by inserting either "should" before "be" OR "redeemed" before "man". As it stands the document is wrong.

Is this "semper reformanda" or "semper fide Westminster?"

I am a PCA member, so I am criticising my house, I think the perjorative "frozen" in front of "chosen" has too much Truth to it. If something is not right, even if written by "Divines" (ugh) we should change it to conform better to Scripture, else we betray the goal of the Reformation. I am not talking about ammending Scritural inerrance, or accomodation to current societal trends. That we should stand firm on. I am a creationist totally in accord with the Chicago statement of fundamentals and frankly wish Churches would require women to put something on their head in plain obedience to the Bible, as I require it of my daughters and wife. However, there is a gulf between adhering to tradition and to the Scriptures.

The PCA has already ammended the "Divines" far more substantially on other issues, like the "Pope is the antichrist" language.

So is it REALLY "semper reformanda" or is that just a title to hide our frozen status?

JR

JR

 

[stenerson]

Then it ought be ammended by inserting either "should" before "be" OR "redeemed" before "man". As it stands the document is wrong.

Is this "semper reformanda" or "semper fide Westminster?"

JR

I'm not a Presbyterian, other's who are might have a better idea. My understanding is that it is communicating the chief aim of man from God's perspective. From the original creation perspective. What man was created for. He was created to glorify God, by reflecting His image.
It doesn't matter if man is now fallen, reprobate, or redeemed. The chief aim is the same, whether they are following it or not.

 

[cubanito]

OK since u are not Presby, do we seem frozen to you?

JR

 

[stenerson]

I personally don't believe question one needs any innovation. I don't know about all their confessions, doctrines to judge though.