1689 Federalism Response to Wellum’s “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics”

by Brandon Adams

A 20 page paper by Stephen J. Wellum titled “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics” was posted in the New Covenant Theology Facebook group recently [Note: it has since been removed as it was not supposed to be posted publicly – it will be available in this volume]. It presents a good opportunity to bring to attention some of the important areas where 1689 Federalism (a particular version of covenant theology) disagrees with Westminster Federalism (what Wellum simply refers to as “covenant theology”), as well as highlight where 1689 Federalism believes Progressive Covenantalism errs. My comments will be brief, and I won’t be summarizing his argument, so make sure to read it first.

Covenant theology has sought to do ethics and establish the basis for moral law by following the venerable tradition of dividing the Mosaic law into three parts: moral, civil, and ceremonial… A direct equation is made between the Decalogue and eternal moral law and a general hermeneutical rule is followed: unless the NT explicitly modifies or abrogates the Mosaic law (as in the ceremonial and civil parts), it is still in force today. This rule becomes the principle by which moral law is established across the canon.

This is an important point. This is how modern RB and paedobaptist covenant theology answers the question, but it is not how 1689 Federalism answers the question. Unlike the other groups, we do not believe the Old and New are two administrations of the same covenant, therefore we do not believe the Mosaic covenant continues to be in force today aside from specific laws (or categories of laws) that have been repealed. Progressive Covenantalism is simply unaware of our position (I don’t blame them for that). We believe the entire Mosaic covenant, and thus the Mosaic law, is abrogated. Therefore we do not follow Westminster Federalism (“covenant theology”) in arguing that all Mosaic law is still in force today unless abrogated (because it was all abrogated).

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Which Way, Evangelicals? There is Nowhere to Hide

by Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.

The very first issue of Christianity Today is dated October 15, 1956. In his first editorial, Carl F. H. Henry set his course for the magazine: “Those who direct the editorial policy of Christianity Today unreservedly accept the complete reliability and authority of the written Word of God. It is their conviction that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of plenary inspiration.”

Henry also affirmed continuity with the great orthodox tradition of biblical doctrine and moral principles: “The doctrinal content of historic Christianity will be presented and defended. Among the distinctive doctrines to be stressed are those of God, Christ, man, salvation, and the last things. The best modern scholarship recognizes the bearing of doctrine on moral and spiritual life.”

In that same issue, Billy Graham stressed the authority of the Bible in evangelism. “I use the phrase ‘The Bible says’ because the Word of God is the authoritative basis of our faith,” Graham said. “I do not continually distinguish between the authority of God and the authority of the Bible because I am confident that he has made his will known authoritatively in the Scriptures.”

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

John Owen on Abortion

Reformed Baptist Fellowship

Paul tells us of the old Gentiles that they were “without natural affection (Rom. 1:31). That which he aims at is that barbarous custom among the Romans, who ofttimes, to spare the trouble in the education of their children, and to be at liberty to satisfy their lusts, destroyed their own children from the womb; so far did the strength of sin prevail to obliterate the law of nature, and to repel the force and power of it. Examples of this nature are common in all nations; amongst ourselves, of women murdering their own children, through the deceitful reasoning of sin. And herein sin turns the strong current of nature, darkens all the light of God in the soul, controls all natural principles, influenced with the power of the command and will of God. But yet this evil hath, through the efficacy of sin, received a fearful aggravation…

View original post 34 more words

Adultery Prevention

One of the most depressing aspects of blogging is having a blog post ready, then checking Challies before you post, only to see him tackle the same subject earlier this morning. But if that post was how people fall into extra marital affairs, then this is how people who have remained faithfully married have, by grace, done so. Here are some practical ways to maintain faithfulness to your spouse. (I am writing from a woman’s perspective, but much of this would apply to husbands as well.)

 

Read the rest here.

Should Chris Broussard be suspended from ESPN

It seems that intolerance has become a normal response from the homosexual and or atheist community concerning the freedom of speech exercised by Christians in calling sin, sin. When a Christian, no matter what field of work they are in, state that certain things are sinful, then those who claim that Christians are intolerant bigots, actually show their true colors.

Atheists and homosexuals do not want the same rights as Christians or married couples, but instead would rather have special rights. They want to be able to silence everyone who disagrees with them, while at the same time speaking whatsoever they desire. In this they show that they are the true intolerant, bigots.

Chris Broussard, an employee of ESPN, can’t come out and freely state what he believes about homosexuality, but an athlete, movie star, musician, etc…. can freely state that they are homosexual without anyone making a big fuss about it, including those within the Christian community. In other words, Christians are not the ones who try to silence and violate the free speech of atheists or homosexuals, but instead the shoe is on the other foot.

Before I introduce this article from CP Entertainment, I want to plainly declare that an atheist is a fool for denying that God exist, even to the extent that he claims to be rational, while not using reason Psalms 53:1. On the other side we have homosexuals claiming to be born with desires for members of the same sex, but Leviticus 18:22 is plain that this type relationship is an abomination before God. So both Atheists and Homosexuals are committing sin against their Creator.

Here is a portion of the article concerning Chris Broussard:

 

Chris Broussard should be suspended from ESPN, according to over 20,000 Americans who signed a petition helmed by a religious organization.

Broussard, the 44-year-old ESPN analyst, recently sparked a debate when he spoke out against the NBA’s first active player to admit that he was a homosexual, Jason Collins. While Collins, 34, spoke about being gay and Christian in Sports Illustrated magazine recently and in follow-up interviews, Broussard appeared on ESPN’s “Outside The Lines” to say the NBA player claiming to be Christian was glorifying a lifestyle that contradicted biblical teachings.

Faithful America, a online religious community that promotes left-wing agendas, does not agree with Broussard’s stance. The community is calling for ESPN to suspend Broussard and created a petition called “Tell ESPN: Don’t Use The Bible to Gay Bash Athletes” which over 22,000 people signed on faithfulamerica.org.

 

For the rest of the article click here.

Dr’s. R. C. Sproul and R. C. Sproul, Jr. Discuss Abortion

William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins Round 1

My second debate I listened to today was between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins. Atkins was your typical scientist, whom upon denying the existence of God, has nothing left to try and answer the reason for the universe and all that lies therein except for evolution. Atkins argued that the arguments for theism do not work, yet just arguing they don’t work does not make the conclusions invalid to the theist arguments. In order for Atkins to really dismantle the theist arguments he must not only show that they don’t work, but must erect in their place, arguments that will be valid once the premises are reasoned to their logical conclusions.  This he did not do.

Atkins had as much faith in science as a theist has in his belief in God. Atkins argued that science can give an answer for all there is in this closed system or universe. Atkins believed that science can explain all things. Nevertheless Craig took him to task and showed that science cannot prove or explain mathematical equations, science cannot show the foundation for logic and reason, science cannot explain aesthetics, nor can science prove that science is true because the scientific method cannot be done on science itself.

Of course, Atkins used the famous argument against cause and effect that most atheist use. He stated that we know that cause and effect works within this closed system called the universe, but we do not know whether or not cause and effect works on the universe itself to bring it into existence.. Of course, before he was finished he actually admitted that nothing exist, in this universe or outside of it. As Atkins closed he lamented that he had been misrepresented.

Of course Craig took Atkins to task and dismantled his arguments. But Atkins could not receive truth because he trusted in science as if it were a god.

You can listen to this debate here.

This debate took place in 1998. There is a more recent debate between these two.

 

William Lane Craig vs. Paul Draper

Today I listened to a debate between William Lane Craig and Paul Draper on the existence of God. In this debate Draper admitted that he was an agnostic and that even though the belief in theism was probable, nevertheless there just wasn’t enough evidence to support the view that God exist. Draper instead built a cumulative case defense for humanism and naturalism and concluded by stating that there was more evidence to deny God, than there was to affirm his existence.

Craig done a fine job in dismantling Draper’s views. In doing so, Craig presented evidence for God’s existence that could not be torn down by Draper.

 You can listen to the debate by downloading it here.

This debate took place in 1997.