Series - Disingenuousness

Read the series.

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.

Read the series.

A Plea for Plain Speaking

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.