It’s a curious thing, to me, witnessing atheists commenting on moral or ethic issues. Between the popular guys who appear on TV and the regular guys who may or may not appear on YouTube, the tone varies, depending on what the medium allows for or demands. But it’s not even so much the tone that keeps me watching or listening or reading. It’s the very clearly moral language they’re utilizing to disparage the audacity of Christians to allow their freely held ideas to breach the boundaries of their intellects, and, you know, to act in a way that reflects what …Read more
An Eclectic Peripatetic responding to Kurt Jaros, Jordan Cooper, Michael Patton, and a commenter named Scott.
Why I Lack Certainty about Christianity – C. Michael Patton:
… Read more
Some people say that they have no doubt at all, and they never have. I have difficulty believing assertions such as this, though I suppose they might be true for a very small number of individuals. However, at this point, I think it would be valuable for us to distinguish between “certainty” and “certitude” (Daniel Taylor introduced me to this concept, but I don’t know if the distinctions he made are embedded in the specific definitions of the terms). “Certainty” is the more objective type of conviction. It is the
As the release of K. Scott Oliphint’s “Covenant Apologetics” draws nigh, I’m finding that it’s harder and harder to get away, in Presuppositionalist circles, from the objections to the very use of these terms, and a modest storm of controversy that continues to build. There is, I think, a very good reason for that. It’s quite obvious, I’ve gathered, that the usage of”Covenant Apologetics” is significant in that it marks a watershed between a variety of streams of thought, and that of covenantal apologists. First, it marks a watershed, in the most general sense, from the postmodern conception of presuppositions …Read more
Dr. White finished his review of the Jaros/Oliphint discussion, and mentioned Choosing Hats toward the beginning.…Read more
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.