Excellent exposition from Romans 2, a text I’ve had occasion to look at as well. He also addresses other texts in a shorter fashion. Pay close attention to the various implications he draws out from the denial of universal moral law, along with other issues, that NCT demands. If I might be so bold, it might also be helpful to look over my paper in the first issue of In Antithesis, which addresses Romans 1 and the first part of 2.
I don’t think I’ve ever posted on this subject before – primarily because the majority of the support for this is internet-based, and non-systematized. Since the subject has come up on the facebook page, however, I decided to include this in order to address the topic, as we are on the subject of covenant, and as some brothers have said, the terminology itself gives the impression of taking the ‘high ground”, as it were. It may also be helpful for those who haven’t studied the topic at all before. It’s an introduction, and done a good while ago. On the …Read more
This is a wonderful exposition of Baptist Covenant Theology. Again, no homework. I only ask that you be mindful of what is taught, and what the implications are for the denial of that teaching – especially in the context of our methodology.
I don’t have any homework for you before this one. I would, however, invite you to think, very carefully, about what the nature of Adam’s headship would be, if this doctrine was denied – and what covenant that man could be said to be breaking. There are, of course, many implications to be found here – but I’ll leave you to ponder them for yourself.
Before you listen to the sermon I have linked below, I want you to do something for me. First, read Psalm 36. Second, read Romans 1-3. (As a bonus, throw in 4 and 5 – you might catch why I said that in the sermon.) Third, read the first chapter of Calvin’s Institutes. Fourth, ponder what implications the universal knowledge of God, the universal knowledge of His moral law, and the status of man as covenant-breaker, under Adam, his federal head, might have insofar as what Van Til’s usage of those concepts was, and what theology they presuppose. Please take …Read more
… Read more
From this attribute of God, he has one of his names, “Shaddai”, which signifies, who is sufficient, or all-sufficient; of which see Chapter 3. Three things may be observed under this attribute.
1. That God is a self-sufficient Being, and needs not anything from without himself to support himself, or to make himself happy. He is the “first” of Beings, the first and the last; before him there was no God formed, nor will be any after him; from everlasting to everlasting he is God; and therefore his existence is not owing to any; nor has he received any assistance
Some people think Fristianity is a “Silver Bullet” objection to Covenantal Apologetics. Are they correct?
Is it consistent to be involved in youth ministry as well as CA? I address this assertion sans argument in a short edition.
It’s been quite a while since there’s been a post in this series, hasn’t it? I apologize for the delay! This post will continue the discussion we left off in the last post, and pick up on the same page.
… Read more
Of course, what Mr. Black is doing appears very reasonable to himself. “Surely,” he says, if questioned at all on the subject, “a rational man must have a systematic coherence in his experience. Therefore he cannot accept as true anything that is not in accord with the law of noncontradiction. So long as you leave your God in the realm