Read the series.
I’ve mentioned analogies in this series, so let me give one of my own.
Suppose someone made you a promise concerning something of great importance to you. This person then went a step further and, to show his intent to make good his promise, entered in to some solemn ritual involving a self-maledictory oath. You could surely trust the promise right?
Read the series.
I am considering this matter of plain speaking in theological discourse, and have noted my dislike of those views which put something in a such way that it is easy to mistake the intentions. We are used to being given the run-around by the cults—for they deal in duplicity—but evangelical brothers and sisters can do this sort of thing too. I only wish to issue a plea for plain-speaking.
I’m going to repost a group of articles I wrote years ago about the God of Supersessionism. I have been having fun lately on ‘X’ with people who want to correct me on my view of the covenants with the usual fodder of ‘the NT reinterprets the OT.’ One of these individuals informed me the “the Covenant” in Genesis 1-3 was plainly in view. When I asked him (repeatedly) to show me this “covenant” he implied I needed to receive the Spirit! Another gentleman who claimed the NT is required to understand the OT was challenged with the five covenants God mentions in Jer. 33. His response was to close the conversation down.
“In the end, Shaw offers 13 very good arguments for the reliability of the New Testament. And while each one is compelling in its own way, the impact of 13 following one after the other is tremendously encouraging and faith-building.” - Challies
“These issues have not turned us into liberals…. our faith and our doctrine have been shaped by looking at what God has actually revealed and preserved for us.” - Mark Ward
By Bob Courtney
Like many other pastors in our fellowship, I spent several years studying at a Bible institution. Many times, as a young man in my late teens, I encountered theological issues in the classroom that were over my head or had very little interest to me. I did not understand the importance of teaching on canonicity, higher criticism, inspiration, or inerrancy. I figured that those who argue for such things were people of academics and it seemed that there was no reason for a future pastor to know them. Today, I smile at my own ignorance and choose not to disclose my quiz scores from those days.
“In delivering the words he wanted us to have, God chose the supernatural means of divine inspiration and inscripturation. In preserving the words he wanted us to have, God chose the providential means of human transmission and translation.” - P&D
“Given that fact, and given the fact that Sandy’s book failed to give even one new insight into Scripture that is traceable to the recovering of orality, I felt safe to conclude that I was reading a good exponent of poor ideas.” - Mark Ward
