Someone I know who holds a prominent position in the World Reformed Fellowship Network was interviewed this morning on radio here in South Africa. In the interview he explained what the WRF is etc etc. He also referred to the statement of faith of the WRF. I visited their web page to see what this statement of faith says. Have not read it in detail but Article 6 under the Doctrine of God caught my attention. It says:


Now the reason why it caught my attention is because a number of years ago Pilgrim posted a question here on The Highway asking whose voice was it that was heard at Mount Sinai. We finally came to the conclusion (Pilgrim knew the answer beforehand!) that it was the voice of the Son and the reason being that the Son is the only mediator between the Father and man. And the Son was the mediator from the beginning; he didn't become it only later at His incarnation. I have also checked this interpretation with another reformed pastor here and he immediately confirmed it. And then there are also the numerous references in the OT to the appearance of the Angle of the Lord. Personally, I therefore don't agree with this article.

Would like to hear your evaluation of this specific article of the WRF's statement of faith.

I didn't have the time to carefully read through the whole statement of faith. Just scanned it and I am not really convinced that it can stand next to the Three Forms of Unity as this person claimed this morning on radio.

Johan

Johan, I stand with you in disagreement of the quoted text, a conclusion to which I came while still reading that quote, before having reached your own second paragraph. It has long been my understanding that it is the Son whom we see in the O.T.

John tells us that no one has seen God at any time; this in reference to the Father. Yet, we have the numerous O.T. theophanies, as you mentioned.

But I appreciate also the reason you gave, that Christ (not Mary!) is the only mediator between God and man. This tells us perfectly that those theophanies must have been Christophanies, since no man speaks to the Father, nor is spoken to by the Father, except through the Son.

So the voice from Heaven at the Lord's baptism was the Son?

Obviously not! But I'm curious why you asked the question?

Some of the stuff in this thread seems to indicate that only the Son and Spirit communicate to men, but if the "dove" didn't speak and Jesus didn't say that about Himself, it's easy to presume that the Father did the speaking.

Okay, gotcha. But the comments in this thread are trying to deal with the quote provided by Johan which states that only the Father spoke in the OT. The responses, including mine are thus to be understood restrictively and they are not implying that God the Father never speaks. The baptism of Christ is a good prooftext that this is not the case and to which I certainly am in agreement with you.

Agree.

But what about that specific article? I looked through the list of denominations that are part of the WRF and I've seen that our denomination is also listed. Now, it is said explicitly before the statement of faith is given that the intention of this statement of faith is not meant to replace other confessions, but can one reconcile this article, for example, with the Three Forms of Unity?

Perhaps another relevant question here is: What are the implications of a statement of faith in organizations such as the WRF? Looking through the list of member denominations etc, although called reformed, the WRF nevertheless seems to be some kind of "pot pourri". Is it correct in such a case to have a statement of faith that simply tries to include all possible views and opinions? The PC(USA) eg. is also listed as a member as well as the Dutch Reformed Church (South Africa) where in the latter denomination there is a very strong group in favour of allowing confessing homosexuals (men and women) to be ordained in all church offices. Seems to me that being a member, a denomination or individual to some extent agrees with the statement of faith.

1. I would appreciate a link to the entire "statement" in order to see #6 in context.

2. As it stands, it is not compatible with the Belgic Confession or Heidelberg Catechism. Nor is it in agreement with the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. Why? I am referring to the following: "but they are eternally present in God and participate fully in all his acts, especially the great work of creation...". The Son and Holy Spirit are not "present in God", but rather they ARE God and share the exact same attributes as the Father; One GOD in three persons. Secondly, they "participate" in all HIS acts... etc. His = ???; God, the Father, or who/what? It reads as if the Son and Holy Spirit are not God.

3. What are the implications of a statement of faith in organizations...? That would be determined by the members who I am going to assume have given assent to the "Statement". Whether they are somehow bound to the statement, i.e., that any that contradicts or denies the Statement would face discipline, which I seriously doubt is the case.

What they apparently did was to formulate a statement using the "lowest common denominator theology" of the whole. There would be no room for "nitpicking" as was the case in every orthodox Reformed confession and catechism ever written. Each word and phrase was carefully chosen to express the truth of Scripture and to hopefully disallow the possibility of anyone introducing heresy into the churches, which is a confession's two-fold purpose: 1) teach believers biblical doctrine and 2) guard against the wolves, both from within and within.

Again, I would really appreciate a link to the full "Statement".

The link is in the first sentence of my original post, although only to the home page. But here it is again:

World Reformed Fellowship Network