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
Now, I’m well aware that not all of you are Reformed Baptists. I’m also aware that not all of our readers are confessional. I won’t press the Reformed Baptist distinctives, but you should, however, be confessional. As Dr. James Renihan says in this lecture; “Before you ask the question ‘what should I do’ – ask the question, ‘what do I believe?'” Reformed Baptist or not, confessional or not, this is a valuable lecture – and hopefully, it will explain, far better than I could, the importance of confessionalism in a consistent, Scriptural faith – and by extension, in your apologetic …Read more
There’s been a good bit of discussion about the nonsensical statements of the so-called “Biola Queer Underground” of late. To be candid, the only justifications they can offer for their revisionist position have been refuted so many times that you almost feel sorry for the research skills of these supposed university students. For instance, the “champion” for their revisionist eisegesis is one Justin Lee, director of the “Gay Christian Network“. What might be interesting to our readers is that this same Justin Lee debated Dr. James White on May 16th prior to the Reformation Montana Conference. …Read more
Matthias, Joshua and Justin discuss the intrinsic ties between synergism and evidentialism, and the theological foundation of Covenantal apologetics in this edition of Point of Contact.