Brandonadams's Favorite Links on blog from Diigo

Marjoe Gortner Interview form "Snapped"

Thu Aug 09 05:41:15 +0000 2012

""Tongues is something you learn," he emphasized. "It is a releasing that you teach yourself. You are told by your peers, the church, and the Bible -- if you accept it literally -- that the Holy Ghost spake in another tongue; you become convinced that it is the ultimate expression of the spirit flowing through you. The first time maybe you'll just go dut-dut-dut-dut, and that's about all that will get out. Then you'll hear other people and next night you may go dut-dut-dut-UM-dut-DEET-dut-dut, and it gets a little better. The next thing you know, it's ela-hando-satelay-eek-condele-mosandrey-aseya ... and it's a new language you've got down." "

Tags: blog pentecostalism tongues

The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed

Thu Jun 14 18:06:55 +0000 2012

A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation

Annotations:

The most glaring logical jump is that which the synod and Berkhof make from the concept of call to that of offer.
the nature of the call was not that of an offer,
the synod and Berkhof assume that call and offer are synonymous.
Dort picks up the Remonstrant language of a serious call but does not accept their requirements for such a call, namely, that God must sincerely intend and will to save anyone who receives that call.
Canons III/IV.8
Neither the 1924 synod nor Berkhof's pamphlet mention this crucial distinction. Later, in his Systematic Theology, Berkhof does bring this distinction into his discussion of the well-meant offer. Again, he uncritically equates the serious call of Canons III/IV.8 with the well-meant offer affirmed by the 1924 synod.23 He affirms that God "earnestly desires" that the sinner will accept the offer. Berkhof lists two objections to the "bonafideoffer of salvation.' The first has to do with the veracity of God:

It is said that, according to this doctrine, He offers forgiveness of sins and eternal life to those for whom He has not intended these gifts. It need not be denied that there is a real difficulty at this point, but this is the difficulty with which we are always confronted, when we seek to harmonize the decre-tive and preceptive will of God, a difficulty which even the objectors cannot solve and often simply ignore.24

The point of the precept-decree distinction, however, is to clarify how God can command one thing and will the actual occurrence of the opposite! The "difficulty" only arises when one confuses the two, as is the case with the doctrine of the well-meant offer. The objectors have no difficulty to solve; nor are they ignorant of this basic distinction that is operative in the Canons and in major theologians of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods.
God cannot will the salvation of the reprobate, since "it would be unworthy of the divine majesty to imagine that there is an incomplete, unresolved, and ineffectual volition in God."
Calvin does not say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate. In fact, when he cites this passage in the Institutes, he says that when God "promises that he will give a certain few a heart of stone [ Ezek. 36:26], let him be asked whether he wants to convert all."
The solution that Hoekema ultimately proposes is that We avoid "a rationalistic solution."
We must continue to hold to both election and the well-meant offer, "even though we cannot reconcile these two teachings with our finite minds." We cannot "lock God up in the prison of human logic."58 Hoekema appeals to what he calls the "Scriptural paradox," by which he means that we must believe that apparently incompatible theological statements are in fact somehow resolved in the mind of God
Our theological concern, Hoekema concludes, "must not be to build a rationally coherent system, but to be faithful to all the teachings of the Bible."
"There is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation."
In this same manner God declared to the Ninevites, and to the kings of Gerar and Egypt, that he would do that which, in reality, he did not intend to do, for their repentance averted the punishment which he had threatened to inflict upon them
we do not deny that the reprobate.., are called by God through the gospel; still we do deny that they are called with the intention that they should be made actual partakers of salvation (which God knew would never be the case because in his decree he had ordained otherwise concerning them). Nor ought we on this account to think that God can be charged with hypocrisy or dissimulation, but that he always acts most seriously and sincerely.
"God cannot in calling intend the salvation of those whom he reprobated from eternity and from whom he decreed to withhold faith and other means leading to salvation. Otherwise he would intend what is contrary to his own will and what he knew in eternity would never take place, and that it would not take place because he, who alone can, does not wish to do it. This everyone sees to be repugnant to the wisdom, goodness, and power of God."
For calling shows what God wills man should do, but not what he himself haddecreed to do. It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature, namely, that one should come to him; but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man.
Calvin's Institutes, 2.2.16 and 3.14.2

Tags: well-meant offer gospel blog

CBMW » Gender Based Boundaries for Gathered Congregations

Fri Mar 30 18:10:12 +0000 2012

Annotations:

even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy, "they did not do so inside the church.
Women may possess speaking gifts, but they are not to use such gifts in the gathered congregation.
Chrysostom's homily makes it quite clear that silence is expected of women in the assembly. He points out that if those who have the gifts are not permitted to speak, even when moved by the Spirit, then certainly this would apply to "those women who prate idly and to no purpose."
Chrysostom points out that if the women are not even to ask any question in the church, "much more is their speaking at pleasure contrary to law."
"Paul accordingly forbids them to speak in public, either by way of teaching or prophesying."
"it would be for a woman, who is in subjection to one of the members, to be in an authoritative position over the whole body! It is therefore an argument based on incompatibilities; because, if the woman is under subjection, she is therefore debarred from having authority to teach in public."
She is not to be the spokesman among the people. She should refrain from teaching, from praying in public."
She may pray (1 Corinthians 11), but may not exercise this ministry in a public service of the church.
"The Methodists do not allow of women preachers."[24] Later in 1769 he advised her, "Pray in private or public as much as you can. Even in public you may properly enough intermix short exhortations with prayer; but keep as far from what is called preaching as you can. Therefore never take a text; never speak a continued discourse, without some break, above four or five minutes.
n his commentary on verse 34, Hodge understands Paul as requiring the silence of women in "the public assemblies." He believes that Paul's prohibition against speaking refers to "public speaking, and especially in the church."[27] While he recognizes that women may receive and exercise the gift of prophesy (Acts 2:17, 21:9), he makes it clear that it is "the public exercise of the gift that is prohibited."
Regarding the asking of questions (v. 35), Robertson and Plummer point out that questions might be objections to what is preached or even contradictions. They can raise such questions with their own husbands at home, but not at church. The authors note the word aiscron ("disgraceful") is a strong word, used of women being clipped or shorn (1 Cor. 11:6). They conclude, "It is really a scandalous thing for a woman to address the congregation or disturb it by speaking."
It is significant and revealing that most of the concerns regarding Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 have been raised by modern commentators.
Women are not to speak in tongues, ask questions of their husbands, or judge the prophets. But when speaking under divine control, they are not expressing their own authority, but God's and would not be in violation of Paul's prohibition in 1 Corinthian 14:33b-36.[51] This view appears nearly identical to Godet's which allows women to pray and prophesy under the Spirit's influence, but otherwise to remain silent.
one wonders if lalew should be limited to certain kinds of speech.
It seems that this context, rather than comments in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, should determine what kind of speech is prohibited.
Paul silences uninterpreted tongues, simultaneous prophesy and "all women in the churches.
According to her understanding, Paul denies women the use of their spiritual speaking gifts in the church.
Grudem argues that while Paul allows women to prophesy in the church (1 Cor. 11:5), he forbids them to speak publicly during the evaluation or judging of prophecies
Much hinges on the assumed, but not proven context of 1 Cor. 11:2-16.
Both Grudem and Carson argue that the immediate context of Paul's command for the women to "keep silent" and not "to speak" is instruction concerning prophesy and the evaluation of prophets. Indeed, 14:29 does refer to the judging of prophets, but the comment is rather brief. Paul writes, "And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." Nothing more is said about passing judgment in this context. Paul does not say that the judgment is to be expressed publicly. The immediate context goes on to refer to those who are given a prophetic revelation. One is to speak while the other prophets remain silent (14:30). Paul rules that the prophets are to do so "one by one" while the others listen and learn (14:31). There is no cause for interrupting each other since "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (14:32) and God is not [a God] of "confusion but of peace" (14:33). Reflecting on the case presented by these careful and highly respected scholars, I am yet to be convinced that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 connects "so neatly" with Paul's brief mention of evaluating prophets.
According to Grudem and Carson, prophesy in the New Testament is a Spirit-prompted utterance, but with no guarantee of divine authority in every detail. Hence, prophesy in the church was in need of evaluation. With all respect to these scholars, I wonder why the Holy Spirit had such a difficult time getting God's message across through the early church prophets when the pattern set forth in the Hebrew Bible gives every indication that biblical prophets spoke God's message with His authority.
This would certainly apply in evaluating the prophecies of her husband or other men. But would it apply as well when other women spoke an utterance by the Spirit? Would the silence Paul calls for in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 prohibit women only in their evaluation of their husbands or other men? Could they participate in judging prophetesses? It does not seem that Paul's demand for silence would allow this. Yet the reasons given for silence (submission to male leadership according to the law) would not seem to apply in this case.
If it were not for Paul's remarks in 1 Cor. 11:2-16, the difficulty of interpreting 14:34-35 would be significantly reduced.
most understood Paul as restricting the public ministry of women when the church was gathered in official assembly.
While it can be used in the context of discussion and debate (Acts 11:2), self-judgment (1 Cor. 11:31) would certainly not require such verbal activity.
One could make a strong case for the view that Paul is addressing two different contexts in chapter 11-the first where believers are gathered in small groups for prayer, and the second where the church is gathered for teaching, preaching and communion. The ministry boundaries for one situation may differ from that of the other.
Is it possible that Paul is giving a restriction on public speech in the church, a restriction which would not apply in the home or other informal group meetings? Paul does contrast the church and the home in 14:35 where he points out that it is permissible for women to ask questions in one place but not in the other. The possibility that Paul is addressing two different contexts in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 is worth pursuing.

Tags: women speaking silent blog

The Church-Integrated Family

Fri Jan 14 00:11:36 +0000 2011

Matthew W. Kingsbury We are at the beginning of the end of the American family as it has been known for generations and generations. As I've discussed this over the years with other pastors, we can no longer assume husbands and wives know the duties they owe one another, let alone how the Bible defines those duties. Parents do not teach their children basic manners, let alone the catechism. Hence, it seems to me churches and pastors will be increasingly obliged to teach congregation members what they never learned at home (that is, how to be families), or they will never find men who rule their households well to serve as elders (1 Tim. 3:4).

Tags: family integrated church blog

The Trinity Foundation - Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

Thu Jan 06 20:20:38 +0000 2011

Annotations:

The ad hominem apagogic arguments are to be used against the unbeliever, who is a covenant-breaker and already in possession of the innate idea of the God against whom he is rebelling. The arguments are to be used in a fashion that will attempt to make him epistemologically self-conscious (and thus God conscious) of his covenant breaking rebellion.
After demonstrating the internal incoherence of the non-Christian views, the Biblical apologete will argue for truth and the logical consistency of the Scriptures and the Christian worldview revealed therein. He will show how Christianity is self-consistent, how it gives us a coherent understanding of the world. It answers questions and solves problems that other worldviews cannot. This method is not to be considered as a proof for the existence of God or the truth of Scripture, but as proof that the non-Christian view is false. It shows that intelligibility can only be maintained by viewing all things as dependent on the God of Scripture, who is truth itself. This is the proper “presuppositional” approach to apologetics.
According to Dr. Clark, then, the defense of the Christian faith involves two basic steps. First, the Christian apologete must show the unbeliever that the axioms of secular systems result in self-contradiction. Second, the apologete should point out the internal consistency of the Christian system. When these two points have been made clear, the Christian will urge the unbeliever to repudiate the axioms of secularism and accept God’s revelation.
In this sense, the laws of logic are axiomatic. But they are only axiomatic because they are fixed or embedded in the Word of God.
Since logic is embedded in Scripture, Scripture, rather than logic as an abstract principle, is selected as the axiomatic starting point of Christian epistemology. Similarly, we do not make God the axiom, because all of our knowledge of God comes from Scripture. “God” as an axiom, without Scripture, is merely a name. Scripture, as the axiom, defines God.
There are apparent contradictions involved at this point. The author has criticized Dr. Clark for averring that the Bible is only “possibly” the Word of God, and he has also stated that Clark is not a presuppositionalist because he placed logic ahead of Scripture as his axiom. Then at the same time, the author states that Clark is a “dogmatist” who believes that the Bible is the axiomatic starting point of the Christian worldview. These contradictions, it would seem, negate Dr. Bahnsen’s criticisms altogether. He cannot eat his cake and have it too.
Logic in the Clarkian view functions as a negative test for truth.
What he is maintaining is that coherence can be verified even by fallen men, even though they do err. But the ultimate coherency test must be left in the hands of the omniscient God of Holy Scripture. That is why we must always depend on the Word of the all-knowing God who assures us that His Word is perfectly coherent and is that standard of truth by which all things must be judged.

Tags: blog

Themelios | Issue 35-1

Wed Dec 29 05:39:00 +0000 2010

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12

Tags: baptism blog

The Trinity Foundation - False Shepherd-The Neolegalism of Norman Shepherd

Fri Sep 24 17:24:25 +0000 2010

Tags: covenant blog

Books | Meredith G. Kline Resource Site

Fri Sep 17 17:23:55 +0000 2010

Tags: kline blog

Beginning with Moses

Fri Sep 03 17:15:32 +0000 2010

Tags: moses blog

MyStudyBible.com

Fri Sep 03 17:14:42 +0000 2010

Tags: bible blog

Gordon Clark on Science | First Word

Mon Aug 09 17:03:49 +0000 2010

Tags: clark science blog

But I say unto you, Jesus was not a New Covenant Theologian!

Tue Mar 09 17:28:57 +0000 2010

In this “But I say to you” passage, was Jesus giving a new command that was unknown in the Old Testament? Under the Mosaic covenant, did no one understand that lust was wrong? The reader is invited to consider the following statements from Solomon and Job: “Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes.” (Proverbs 6:25)

Tags: nct blog

Were the Covenants with Abraham and David Conditional? Dr. Richard Pratt Jr.

Sat Mar 06 17:22:06 +0000 2010

In my estimation reformed theologians who argue that the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were unconditional are fundamentally misguided. Although we may distinguish the central concerns of Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants from each other and from other biblical covenants, there is little justification for arguing that the difference is conditionality and unconditionality.

Annotations:

In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that contemporary reformed theologians are taking different stances on whether the covenants God made with Abraham and David were conditional or unconditional. This is not to say that we have enjoyed complete unanimity on this and related matters in past centuries. Covenant theology has always been riddled with varying opinions. Yet, in our day, differences on this particular issue have so impacted other theological and practical dimensions of the Christian faith that they should no longer be ignored.
Details notwithstanding, two tendencies have emerged. On the one side, some theologians in our circles have argued that the covenants with Abraham and David were unconditional. That is to say, these covenants guaranteed future blessings unconditionally to Abraham and David.
On the other side, other theologians in our circles have argued that the covenants with Abraham and David were conditional. In this view, the future blessings of these covenants were gracious but in some ways dependent upon the condition of human loyalty.
Suzerain-Vassal Treaties were formally ratified international arrangements between greater kings and lesser kings in the ancient Near East.
Royal Land Grants were legal declarations in which kings granted properties, usually to priests and other high-ranking officials, as rewards for faithful service.
More recent research has indicated that Land Grants were by no means unconditional. 2 They were not promissory in the sense that perpetual possession of properties was unconditionally guaranteed. On the contrary, when ancient kings made Land Grants, they did so conditionally. This historical reality calls into question the use of Land Grants as frameworks for understanding the covenants with Abraham and David as unconditional.
Abraham and David were citizens of God’s Kingdom and were always obligated to remain loyal to their divine king. Contrary to what we might think, it was not necessary for God to state this obligation explicitly every time he enacted policies in his kingdom.
The absence of divine threats against the king, strongly suggests, as we should expect in the ancient world, that kings did not give up their prerogative to confiscate land from those who later rebelled against them.
a fuller analysis of the biblical accounts of God’s covenants with Abraham and David indicates that they entailed future obligations and conditions. Unfortunately, when dealing with these covenants we encounter a number of complicating factors that often obscure this fact.
Unfortunately, a survey of reformed literature on the covenants with Abraham and David quickly reveals that these complications are seldom significantly factored into discussions. For the most part, interpreters act as if they are handling actual covenant texts. In many respects, they treat the relevant passages as if they were stand-alone documents, much like Suzerain-Vassal Treaties and Royal Land Grants. Thus, many interpreters think that they have grasped a full picture of these covenants simply by summarizing what these texts say. But the biblical records of God’s covenants with Abraham and David should hardly be treated in this way.
On the one hand, Genesis 15:9-21 reports how Abraham killed animals in a ceremony of malediction and how Yahweh passed through the carnage to confirm by divine oath that Abraham’s descendants would certainly inherit the land of Canaan. On the other hand, in Genesis 17:9-14 the maledictory cutting ceremony of circumcision is required of Abraham and his descendants as a sign of their loyalty to Yahweh. These texts report truths about Abraham’s covenant in very different ways.
The text gives no explanation for Abraham’s special treatment of the birds. This information gap perplexes many modern readers, but Moses’ early readers did not need an explanation because Mosaic law had codified this practice in sacrificial rituals by the time of the writing of Genesis (see Leviticus 1:17).
Second, the symbolic significance of the "smoking firepot with a blazing torch" that passed through the midst of the carnage in Genesis 15:17 also receives no explanation in the text. Once again, modern readers are often confused as to its significance, but apparently Moses felt no explanation was needed because of the immediate association it brought to the minds of the Israelites who received his account. It reminded them of the appearance of God in the form of the "pillar of fire and cloud" leading them toward the promised land. (Exodus 13:21-22; 14:19, 24; 33:9-10; Numbers 14.14) Most early competent readers would have made this association and realized that it was God who walked among the carnage, taking the threat of curse upon himself.
The vocabulary of a "blameless" life (tamim) needed no explanation for the early audience of Genesis because it was a familiar way of summarizing conformity to the moral requirements of God in the covenant with Moses (see Deut 18:13).
First, we should note that we are not dealing with two covenants made with Abraham. In Genesis 15:18 we read that "the LORD made a covenant with Abram," or more literally "cut a covenant" (karath), a common way to speak of the initiation of a covenant. In Genesis 17:2, however, God said, "I will confirm my covenant," using the Hebrew expression ve’ettenah>, meaning to confirm or establish what was already in existence. So, we find here not two covenants, but two facets or dimensions of God’s one covenant with Abraham, the latter being a confirmation and further explanation of the earlier.
Israel’s initial deliverance is characterized as an act of unilateral mercy. In this way, it parallels the presentation of Abraham’s covenant in Genesis 15:1-21. Yet, as the Israelites moved forward in the wilderness they turned from the promise of God like Abraham had in Genesis 16. For this reason, Moses stressed explicitly in Genesis 17 that Abraham’s covenant included obligations.
It is misleading to speak of Abraham’s covenant as either promissory or obligatory. There are senses in which it was both promissory and obligatory, unconditional and conditional. We may delineate these two sides of Abraham’s covenant in a number of ways.
On the one side, God made promises in the covenant with Abraham that will certainly be fulfilled. God swore to fulfill them and he cannot fail to bring them about without violating his oath. What were these promises? In Genesis 15:16 and 18 God promised that Abraham’s descendants would come out of slavery and possess the land of Canaan. This promise could not be broken. It was unconditional. As the rest of the OT indicates, Abraham’s descendants did in fact receive this promise. They successfully inherited the land and established a great nation there.
On the other side, however, participation in and reception of Abraham’s promised blessings was quite conditional. Despite the fact that God promised Abraham’s descendants the land, this promise did not guarantee this promise for particular individuals, families or groups.
even Abraham’s personal reception of the promises made to him in covenant were contingent on his loyalty.
If Abraham or his descendants failed to be circumcised, they would be "cut off" (venikeretah; Genesis 17:14). To be "cut off" in the Mosaic period was to receive a sentence of exile or death (see Exodus 12:15, 19; Leviticus 7:25, 27).
Both Abraham and his descendants would receive the blessings promised through covenant only as they fulfilled (however imperfectly) their covenant obligations.
In sum, there were senses in which the covenant with Abraham was both unconditional and conditional. Abraham was promised by divine oath that in one way or another his descendants would come out of Egypt and possess the land of Canaan. But at the same time, for particular individuals, families and groups to enjoy this promise, they had to fulfill covenant obligations.
In sum, Psalm 89 applies the covenant God made with David to situations his descendants faced throughout their generations. When a son of David violated covenant he would be punished. The book of Kings makes it clear that these punishments were quite severe at times, even culminating in death, the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon. But these punishments did not invalidate the covenant promises to David. David had fulfilled his obligations and was assured of his own participation in the future blessings of his family.
As we consider the question of conditionality with respect to David’s covenant, we face a situation similar to what we saw with Abraham. It is misguided to speak of this covenant as either unconditional or conditional. On the contrary, there are senses in which it is both unconditional and conditional. On the one side, certain aspects of the covenant with David would be fulfilled no matter what David or any of David’s descendants did. But on the other side, certain aspects of the covenant are conditional, depending on the obedience and disobedience of David and his royal descendants.
This passage is important for our discussion because it alludes to Genesis 12:3 and turns God’s word to Abraham into a royal matter. As the kingdom of God unfolded, the hope of extending God’s blessings to the world through Abraham rested on David’s house. One day a great son of David would rule with such perfect righteousness that he would fully accomplish all of Israel’s hopes.
The eventual success of the Davidic dynasty was a thoroughly unconditional dimension of the covenant with David reaching back to the covenant with Abraham. Although the Scriptures indicate that this promise was fulfilled by Christ in ways that were not expected by Old Testament believers, it was unconditionally secured by divine oath to David and simply could not fail.
In the second place, it is also clear that the covenant with David entailed conditions.
In effect, as with the Abrahamic covenant, the certainty of eventual outcomes for the kingdom of God rested on the unconditional dimension of David’s covenant. Yet, this certain hope did not imply that every royal figure in David’s family would enjoy the blessing of God. On the contrary, only those who were faithful to covenant could expect to participate in the blessings promised to David’s house.
This conditional quality of the Davidic covenant is a central feature of much of the Old Testament. It formed the basis of the critiques of royal figures in the books of Kings and Chronicles. It was the foundation for the numerous condemnations of particular kings found in the prophetic books. To characterize David’s covenant as entirely unconditional is to mischaracterize it. It was unconditional in its dynastic guarantees, but conditional in its requirements for David and his sons.
To reinforce what we have seen at this point, we should mention that the language of conditionality is the same in all three covenants God made with Israel. As we have already seen, in Genesis 17:9 God told Abraham and his descendants to "keep my covenant" by observing circumcision. This expression also appears in the Mosaic covenant when God says to Israel in Exodus 19:5 "and you must keep my covenant". In the same way, in Psalm 132:11 the Davidic line is also required to "keep my covenant." This shared language makes it clear that the fundamental dynamics of all three covenants are the same. God will keep the promises he made in each covenant, but participation in those blessings for individuals, families and groups among God’s people is conditional upon their keeping covenant.
To take matters a step further, we may even say that a measure of conformity to God’s standards of holiness is a necessary condition for receiving salvation.
The doctrine of perseverance recognizes that not everyone who benefits from divine covenants in this life has truly been justified.
Prior to that day there will be both justified and unjustified people in the ranks of the visible church. For this reason, the New Testament makes sanctification a necessary condition for eternal salvation
Divine covenants in Scripture begin with and are sustained by divine grace. In fact, even human compliance with the moral obligations of biblical covenants is the result of divine grace. Yet, the reformed doctrine of perseverance should help us see that receiving the blessings of divine covenants has always entailed the condition of human loyalty. No one has ever been guaranteed eternal salvation apart from loyalty to God.
The crown that awaits us will be received only if we pass the test of a sanctified life.
In my estimation reformed theologians who argue that the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were unconditional are fundamentally misguided. Although we may distinguish the central concerns of Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants from each other and from other biblical covenants, there is little justification for arguing that the difference is conditionality and unconditionality. God’s plan for his kingdom has unfolded across history in a way that is unified. The one God of Scripture designed all of his covenants as administrations of his one immutable kingdom purpose. Moreover, God has granted the reception of salvation promised in every covenant through the same process in every covenant administration. His grace undergirds every aspect of covenant life and personal salvation. Yet, life in covenant with God has always entailed the condition of loyalty as the demonstration of saving faith.
faith that justifies has always resulted in meeting the requirements of good works. Works of righteousness through the sanctifying power of the Spirit have been required in every covenant in Scripture.

Tags: abrahamic covenant blog

An exposition of the epistle to the Hebrews : John Owen

Sat Feb 06 20:45:24 +0000 2010

John Owen's commentary on Hebrews ch 8

Tags: owen covenant blog

A Brief Critique of Michael Horton’s Mosaic Covenantal Nomism « Patrick’s Pensees

Mon Jan 18 18:23:00 +0000 2010

Michael Horton distinguishes between entering and remaining in the Promised Land. Akin to the principles of covenantal nomism, Israel entered the land by grace and would remain in the land by works.

Tags: republication covenant blog

Eschatological Fulfilment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law: Response to D. A. Carson

Thu Nov 12 20:41:04 +0000 2009

Tags: nct blog

The Case of John O. Kinnaird

Thu Nov 12 20:34:58 +0000 2009

The Case of John O. Kinnaird Ruling Elder at Bethany Orthodox Presbyterian Church Oxford, Pennsylvania Documents

Tags: judgment blog

The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 2 « Reformed Baptist Fellowship

Mon Nov 09 02:29:39 +0000 2009

On these grounds it is misguided to say that fathers need to disciple their children in covenant keeping. The only covenant that children outside of Christ are in is the Covenant of Works.

Tags: covenant blog

Why on Sunday? O. Palmer Robertson

Mon Oct 26 16:06:30 +0000 2009

Tags: sabbath blog

Feeding on Christ » Blog Archive » The Spiritual Use of OT Case Laws

Sat Oct 24 20:11:00 +0000 2009

Tags: theonomy blog